Courtroom Confusion
Read these two paragraphs, taken from this article, and see if your head spins:
So according to her ruling in the first paragraph, they are not "enemy combatants," and must thus be afforded the full protection of the Bill of Rights, (a position, by the way, with which I completely and categorically disagree, but that's not the point). Then, a few sentences later, she states that they have protections under the Geneva Convention--which applies exclusively to enemy combatants.
Make up your mind, you stupid sow. Where do we find these so-called "judges?" From what I can see, this woman couldn't accurately judge a game of marbles.
"Of course, it would be far easier for the government to prosecute the war on terrorism if it could imprison all suspected 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay without having to acknowledge and respect any constitutional rights of detainees," [U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens] Green said.
Green also ruled that some of the suspects have brought valid claims under the Geneva Convention, the international treaty protecting the rights of prisoners of war.
So according to her ruling in the first paragraph, they are not "enemy combatants," and must thus be afforded the full protection of the Bill of Rights, (a position, by the way, with which I completely and categorically disagree, but that's not the point). Then, a few sentences later, she states that they have protections under the Geneva Convention--which applies exclusively to enemy combatants.
Make up your mind, you stupid sow. Where do we find these so-called "judges?" From what I can see, this woman couldn't accurately judge a game of marbles.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 08:26
3 Comments:
I really can't see how rights afforded American citizens under the constitution applies to prisoners of war. If the rights granted them under the geneva convention are being violated then something needs to be done. Short of that I don't want to hear it. I agree that it's a shame if a decent person who isn't a terrorist is in the prison but we are doing our best to work those things out. Right now the primary mission is to reduce the number of terroists on the streets. How this became a civilian court issue I have no idea.
Later,
N
Following up on Green’s history I found a quote from an interview with the Judge in 1999. Maybe that explains some of your confusion over her decision. Notice that "The judges on the court work alone, without a law clerk or a secretary."
BR: Most people are not aware that such a court even exists. What does the court do?
JHG: The court deals exclusively with national security and with international terrorism, and involves applications for electronic surveillance. The judges receive very sensitive information and are required to have the highest security clearance available. I went through an extraordinary FBI investigation where the most soul-searching questions imaginable were asked. The judges on the court work alone, without a law clerk or a secretary. The appointment is for a non-renewable seven years.
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/legends_in_the_law/green.cfm
This article from December 2001 by Robert H. Bork covers how the tribunals are more are actually more effective than today’s court system.
http://nationalreview.com/17dec01/borkprint121701.html
I don't find this confusing at all.
The judge refers to the prisoners as "suspected 'enemy combatants'" which is completely accurate. The problem is that many are being held as "suspects" and not being officially charged or offically classified as enemy combatants. Therefore, they are not being granted the rights accorded to enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention.
They are also not being granted the rights set forth by the charter that gives our government power, the Constitution. These people are being held indefinitely with no reason given and no means of recourse. In the judge's opinion, that is illegal. I agree.
While I think it is debatable that the legal rights guaranteed by the Constituion should be conferred onto foreigners, I also think that ignoring one our own core principals of the due process of law as well as international treaties is complete hypocrisy. What kind of example are we setting for the rest of the world? Saying "do as we say, but not as we do" is not going to improve our standing in the international community.
We are holding these people prisoner indefinitely without ANY rights in the name of spreading "freedom." Now, what kind of sense does THAT make?
-J
Post a Comment
<< Home