U.S. Citizens Win Supreme Court Decision

Your name does not suit you or your attitude.

The Supreme Court has violated their own precedence in their decision. The court ruled years ago that they had no jurisdiction over prisoners who were not American citizens and were not inside the US, regardless of who they were or who was detaining them. That still applies regardless of this unfortunate, unjustifiable ruling.

Also, even the Geneva Convention did not recognize non-uniformed combatants as valid prisoners of war. They were considered to be, and are, terrorists. These people are NOT US citizens, they have not committed any crime in the USA, and, therefore, should not be given any standing at all under our law or in our courts or nation.

This ruling, if it stands, will make it necessary for soldiers fighting on foreign soil and capturing non-uniformed enemy fighters to, after securing all prisoners, search for and collect all possible evidence at the site that could be used for or against him or his prisoners, something a soldier should not have to find necessary.

I believe we will see one of two scenarios come from this.

1. The Joint Chiefs will tell the SCOTUS to flake off in defiance and refuse to transfer the prisoners to the USA. What is the court going to do then? Send the FBI after the Army? The military is governed by the UCMJ, not the laws of the civilian world.

2. If this ruling is abided by, we may see the end of taking non-uniformed prisoners on the battlefield, as was the case in WWII. They will just be eliminated outright.

BUT, in no way can any case be made that the court has handed down any justice for citizens, they have brought about the possibility of these vermin getting loose in our country and doing their work freely. God forbid.

Glenn Flowers

Your article was very good, and I agree wholeheartedly! How is it that treatment of prisoners can become left-right, conservative-liberal and we ignore the Constitution? The Constitution does not license the government to take away court rights just because they're "prisoners" or "terrorists". There are not even trials for detainees, as far as I know! We did Nuremberg Trials for Nazis, so it is not valid to say these present-day "terrorists" are so evil they get no trials. On the contrary, many of the detainees today are innocent while many of the real killers have been set free, I've gathered.

You refer to evil vermin. Is that what you consider those that were determined to be innocent (having been caught between Al Quiada and US troops)and released? So you believe it was right to hold those that were innocent, for years, without any guilt being established.

How about when DHS decides that you are a terrorist and whisks you off to Gitmo for six years. I bet your opinion would change real fast.

It's too bad you fall for the Demorepublicrat brainwashing.

The Supreme Court made the correct decision.

Center for Defense Information
Terrorism
http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documen tID=3662

Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.

However, Geneva Conventions also protect the uncharged terrorist, noting that anyone who has been captured is entitled to protection until "their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Terrorism Detainees: Geneva Convention Common Article 3
All four Geneva Conventions of 1949 contain the same Article 3, declaring that “[i]n the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum” the provisions described above.

Hamdan Supreme Court decision applied Common Article 3 to global conflict with non-state actor within the territory of a Party to the Geneva Conventions

In the process of holding Guantanamo Bay military commissions in their most recent form unlawful, the Supreme Court in Hamdan applied Common Article 3 to the conflict with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. 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.” 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.”

Conservatives uphold the Constitution - not tear it apart as the Democrats and Republicans have done.

It is you who has misinterprated the Geneva Convention. You also seem to want the SCOTUS to have universal, at least global jurisdiction. They don't. They are way out of bounds on this, and so are you.
Go and actually read the Geneva Convention and don't give in to the urge to classify any of the prisoners as militia or belonging to a valid, recognized force.

Glenn

I understand what you are saying Glenn. But we put a lot of innocent civilians in there with a horde of scumbag terrorists. That was evident when we all of a sudden released a boatload of the detainees that had been held for 3 or 4 years.

If we detain innocent civilians, they have a right to the same immunities and priveleges under the law and we must prove their guilt or innocence before we pass crimminal judgement against them. It is an extremly complicated issue.

This prevents the federal government from walking into our homes and declaring that we are terorists, and whisking us off to Gitmo, because we don't agree with their policies. This prevents the federal government from having carte blanc with whomever they want to classify as a terrorist.
It is not just about the Geneva conventions; it includes the preservation of our Constitutional rights and immunities which this administration has chipped away at along with McCain's legislations ...