changed right after the war was over as you may recall and the Soviets
became our enemies. The same with Osama and the US. Osame was the
lesser of two evils between the Soviets and the Taliban. Once the
Soviets were no more, then the Taliban with its actions became an
enemy. Easy peasy to explain that one.
As to the Geneva Convention the terrorists were not noncombatants. They
were unlawful combatants which is a totally different thing and makes
them not covered by the Geneva Convention.
The full range of our rights is not available to the unlawful
combatants. Different thing from what you are trying to bloviate about.
On 10/07/2010 04:12 PM, nominal9 wrote:
> Geneva Conventions are for uniformed army from national
> governments.
> Where do you get that these terrorists are therefore covered by the
> Geneva Conventions. dick
>
> Hi dick , First... I am not a lawyer.... but I do read some such
> stuff, on occassion.... just to keep an eye on the real
> liars.....Anyway, I have read portions of the Geneva Convention that
> extend treaty protections to non-uniformed combatants or just plaint
> indigenoue=s peopel caught in the middle or "suspected.... do you
> really want to make me look it up?... it would be a bother....http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention....
> Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only
> article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international
> conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered
> to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed
> conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship
> or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants 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, including prohibition of outrages upon personal
> dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The
> passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly
> constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are
> recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's
> protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war.
> Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should
> endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or
> part of the other provisions of GCIII.
>
>
> As to the Abu Ghraib photos, those were not military trials. As to
> the
> perps there they had been removed and were having their trials set up
> when the story was broadcast. The military had already publicized
> the
> Abu Ghraib case months before Seymour Hersch wrote his articles. The
> officers had been removed, the NCO's were under indictment and the
> case
> was being handled by the military at the time the story broke. It
> was
> the media that blew that up and caused the problems from Abu
> Ghraib.
> You should check somewhere other than Talking Points Memo before you
> mention that. As I said, those were not trials and have no basis for
> even being mentioned here./ dick
>
> Well... my basis was your comment on the "inquisition" analogy.... I
> was comparing some of the "punishments" imposed by ther Inquisition to
> some of the Photographed punishment at Abu Ghraib... the photo of the
> semi-naked prisoner with the pointed hood over his head, standing on a
> stool with electrodes and wires dangling from his fingers particularly
> evoked the Inquisitiion for me... the Inquisitioners were the first to
> wear those sorts of pointy hoods, I think.... I don't know if the KKK
> picked it up directly from them, or not.... Anyway.... association to
> torture was my aim, not a strict allegation of trials for the
> prisoners there.
>
>
> I made no mention of denying rights to citizens. I was merely
> suggesting that there is no basis in the Constitution or the case law
> that would suggest that foreign nationals should be granted the
> rights
> that are granted citizens by the Constitution. Can you point to any?
>
> Come on.... do you mean to tell me that a "foreign national" a tourist
> for a week in the U.S. or someone on a limited visitor visa... if
> charged with a crime here in the U.S. ... should not and would not be
> accorded all rights and privileges under the Courts and Law as a U.S.
> Citizen? Maybe you should look that one up.... But to your point.... I
> want to try to find what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this GITMO
> question during the Bush years....http://scholar.google.com/
> scholar_case?case=2483936489630436485&q=Boumediene+v.
> +Bush&hl=en&as_sdt=8002
> there it is...... Boumediene v. Bush.... hope the link works for you I
> could paste the decision but it is long.
>
>
> It was the civilians, in particular a civilian lawyer, who was used
> by
> this sheik to pass orders to his group in Egypt. That would not
> have
> happened with the military. I think if that same case came before
> the
> court now with the benefit of hindsight the results would have been
> different. I also think that had more cases come to the court the
> weight of judging would have been different as well. It was the luck
> of
> the draw which case go to the SCOTUS first. The various cases in
> the
> chute came there from different results based on whether they came
> from
> the 9th Circuit Court or from a court that actually believed in the
> Constitution.
>
>
> As to your grieving, those seem like crocodile tears to me. "I
> grieve
> that because of my political beliefs your rights to protection from
> terrorists have been denied. I grieve that my AG and her staff set
> up
> the wall that kept info from being passed between agencies. I
> grieve
> that the administration I supported for 8 years declined to take
> charge
> of Osama when he was offered. I grieve that the administration I
> supported for 8 years declined to do anything when our embassies were
> blown up. I grieve that when our troops and the ship they were on
> were
> attacked the administration I supported for 8 years sat back and did
> nothing." There's your grief. Fat lot of good it did. / dick
>
> Please do not question my "grief".... I have long stated that I wish
> that each of the Dead U.S. 9/11 cilvilians and U.S. soldiers and
> Coalition soldiers that have died in the Middle East could be replaced
> by the misguided "leaders" and their political supporters who put them
> in harm's way.....it should have been Bush/Cheney and the Neocons...
> plus any of their other misguided supporters.... dead...
> As for the Clinton Administration's handling of Osama bin Laden... I
> do not disagree... but go back further... to the Soviet / Afghan
> War....the U.S. supported Osama back then, too....What turned an "ally
> " into an enemy, then? How about the Israeli/ Palestinian issue...
> want to get into that one, too?
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 6, 5:28 pm, dick<rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Geneva Conventions are for uniformed army from national governments.
>> Where do you get that these terrorists are therefore covered by the
>> Geneva Conventions.
>>
>> As to the Abu Ghraib photos, those were not military trials. As to the
>> perps there they had been removed and were having their trials set up
>> when the story was broadcast. The military had already publicized the
>> Abu Ghraib case months before Seymour Hersch wrote his articles. The
>> officers had been removed, the NCO's were under indictment and the case
>> was being handled by the military at the time the story broke. It was
>> the media that blew that up and caused the problems from Abu Ghraib.
>> You should check somewhere other than Talking Points Memo before you
>> mention that. As I said, those were not trials and have no basis for
>> even being mentioned here.
>>
>> I made no mention of denying rights to citizens. I was merely
>> suggesting that there is no basis in the Constitution or the case law
>> that would suggest that foreign nationals should be granted the rights
>> that are granted citizens by the Constitution. Can you point to any?
>>
>> It was the civilians, in particular a civilian lawyer, who was used by
>> this sheik to pass orders to his group in Egypt. That would not have
>> happened with the military. I think if that same case came before the
>> court now with the benefit of hindsight the results would have been
>> different. I also think that had more cases come to the court the
>> weight of judging would have been different as well. It was the luck of
>> the draw which case go to the SCOTUS first. The various cases in the
>> chute came there from different results based on whether they came from
>> the 9th Circuit Court or from a court that actually believed in the
>> Constitution.
>>
>> As to your grieving, those seem like crocodile tears to me. "I grieve
>> that because of my political beliefs your rights to protection from
>> terrorists have been denied. I grieve that my AG and her staff set up
>> the wall that kept info from being passed between agencies. I grieve
>> that the administration I supported for 8 years declined to take charge
>> of Osama when he was offered. I grieve that the administration I
>> supported for 8 years declined to do anything when our embassies were
>> blown up. I grieve that when our troops and the ship they were on were
>> attacked the administration I supported for 8 years sat back and did
>> nothing." There's your grief. Fat lot of good it did.
>>
>> On 10/06/2010 05:01 PM, nominal9 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why do you compare military trials to medieval
>>> trials. Are you saying that the military trials our military are
>>> tried
>>> under are the equivalent of The Inquisition? / dick
>>>
>>
>>> Something about the Abu Ghraib photos suggested it to me.....
>>>
>>
>>> Where do you find the basis for offering
>>> those rights to foreign nationals on trial for terrorist acts? / dick
>>>
>>
>>> Geneva Conventions?.... just a whim....
>>>
>>
>>> After all the
>>> ones that have been carried out were given a fair trial with good
>>> representation. It was only that the civilian lawyers were pissed
>>> because they lost out on getting the cases that this whole brouhaha
>>> came
>>> about in the first place. / dick
>>>
>>
>>> I think the Supreme Court had a hand in that.... there wasn't adequate
>>> "legal" framework under the Bush Administration for militasry
>>> tribunals for "terrorism suspects".... I think... something like
>>> that...
>>>
>>
>>> What is your basis for the
>>> trials of the Sheik who headed the first attempt to blow up the WTC
>>> and
>>> had much to do with the second. / dick
>>>
>>
>>> that was a civilian trial... wasn't it! .... you are the one
>>> complainaing about civilian trials... you critique it....
>>> (as an aside... as I remember, some of the FBI or other federal
>>> prosecutors laughed or mocked the Sheik for his failure to blow up the
>>> Towers the first time around... their "bravado" and lack of
>>> "seriousness" seemed misplaced those sad years later... don't you
>>> think?)
>>>
>>
>>> How about the treatment he dished out and caused to be
>>> dished out to those who jumped or were blown up at the WTC. Do they
>>> deserve any say in this case? Apparently you don't think they matter
>>> at
>>> all. As someone who was lucky to be going to work late that day as
>>> opposed to having been at that site about that time on most days I
>>> want
>>> them to have the roughest trial possible. That could have been me
>>> there on that day being blown up or burned up if I had not had to
>>> stop
>>> by to buy some hearing aid batteries and thus being late for work. /
>>> dick
>>>
>>
>>> Oh... so I suppose you would extend your "denial" of equal protection
>>> and due process to all criminals... regardless of terrorist ties,
>>> citizenship, ethnicity or whatever......?
>>> And by the way.... I do grieve for the fallen and commiserate with the
>>> survivors.....I just do not think that we should do further damage to
>>> our country and institutions... out of spite.... cut off our own
>>> noses, as it were.
>>>
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 4:36 pm, dick<rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> If it is good enough to train our Navy Seals why should I complain about
>>>> using it on terrorists. Would you favor not waterboarding and then
>>>> getting hit with a terroristic attack that you could have prevented?
>>>> Just how far are you willing to go to save the country? and where do you
>>>> draw the line and why. Why do you compare military trials to medieval
>>>> trials. Are you saying that the military trials our military are tried
>>>> under are the equivalent of The Inquisition? Sure sounds like it. Do
>>>> you favor giving terrorists from foreign nations the same rights you are
>>>> denying out troops at trial? Where do you find the basis for offering
>>>> those rights to foreign nationals on trial for terrorist acts?
>>>>
>>
>>>> And back to waterboarding, do you believe San Fran Nan on not knowing
>>>> about it after attending conferences where it was discussed and she was
>>>> a participant? In fact do you believe this administration and this
>>>> Congress on waterboarding in the first place.
>>>>
>>
>>>> Back again to waterboarding, where did I even mention such a thing.
>>>> What I was talking about was that the prisoners in Gitmo should have
>>>> been tried by the military tribunals long ago and would have been had
>>>> people like you butted out and let them get on with it. After all the
>>>> ones that have been carried out were given a fair trial with good
>>>> representation. It was only that the civilian lawyers were pissed
>>>> because they lost out on getting the cases that this whole brouhaha came
>>>> about in the first place.
>>>>
>>
>>>> And back to the terrorist trials again. What is your basis for the
>>>> trials of the Sheik who headed the first attempt to blow up the WTC and
>>>> had much to do with the second. Do you feel that he has been
>>>> maltreated? How about the treatment he dished out and caused to be
>>>> dished out to those who jumped or were blown up at the WTC. Do they
>>>> deserve any say in this case? Apparently you don't think they matter at
>>>> all. As someone who was lucky to be going to work late that day as
>>>> opposed to having been at that site about that time on most days I want
>>>> them to have the roughest trial possible. That could have been me
>>>> there on that day being blown up or burned up if I had not had to stop
>>>> by to buy some hearing aid batteries and thus being late for work.
>>>>
>>
>>>> On 10/06/2010 04:18 PM, nominal9 wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>> dick.... I ask "pointedly" and sarcastically.... Do you recommend that
>>>>> we return to the medieval; practice of throwing a bound prisoner into
>>>>> deep water and waiting to see if he or she floats, as a means to
>>>>> determine guilt or innocence?.... oh yeah, apparently, if you are
>>>>> among those "conservatives" who favor waterboarding.... you just
>>>>> might....
>>>>> nominal9
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Oct 6, 11:11 am, dick<rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Looks like another judge who is making the civilian trials of terrorists
>>>>>> more difficult. No wonder the military wants to do its own trials.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: News Alert: Judge Bars Major Witness From Civilian Terrorism
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Trial
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:17:07 -0400
>>>>>> From: NYTimes.com News Alert<nytdir...@nytimes.com>
>>>>>> Reply-To: nytdir...@nytimes.com
>>>>>> To: rhomp2...@EARTHLINK.NET
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Breaking News Alert
>>>>>> The New York Times
>>>>>> Wed, October 06, 2010 -- 10:15 AM ET
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Judge Bars Major Witness From Civilian Terrorism Trial
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Minutes before a major terrorism trial was about to begin, a
>>>>>> federal judge barred prosecutors in Manhattan on Wednesday
>>>>>> from using a key witness.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> The government had acknowledged it learned about the witness
>>>>>> from the defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, while he was
>>>>>> being interrogated while being held in a secret overseas jail
>>>>>> run by the C.I.A.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> The ruling by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan would be a setback for
>>>>>> the Obama administration's goal of trying former detainees in
>>>>>> civilian courts because it would limit the kinds of evidence
>>>>>> prosecutors can introduce. It was not immediately clear if
>>>>>> prosecutors would appeal the ruling.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> The defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, was scheduled to begin
>>>>>> trial on Wednesday in Federal District Court on charges he
>>>>>> conspired in the 1998 bombings of the American Embassies in
>>>>>> Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks,
>>>>>> orchestrated by Al Qaeda, killed 224 people.
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Read More:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/nyregion/07ghailani.html?hp&emc=na
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> Now get New York Times breaking news alerts sent to your mobile phone.
>>>>>> Sign up by texting
>>>>>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment