PDA

View Full Version : Court finds a right to jihad in the Constitution


FringeNC
07-02-2006, 11:28 AM
excerpt:

Court finds a right to jihad in the Constitution (http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn02.html)

Mark Steyn

There are several ways to fight a war. On the one hand, you can put on a uniform, climb into a tank, rumble across a field and fire on the other fellows' tank. On the other, you can find a 12-year-old girl, persuade her to try on your new suicide-bomber belt and send her waddling off into the nearest pizza parlor.

The Geneva Conventions were designed to encourage the former and discourage the latter. The thinking behind them was that, if one had to have wars, it's best if they're fought by soldiers and armies. In return for having a rank and serial number and dressing the part, you'll be treated as a lawful combatant should you fall into the hands of the other side. There'll always be a bit of skulking around in street garb among civilian populations, but the idea was to ensure that it would not be rewarded --that there would, in fact, be a downside for going that route.

The U.S. Supreme Court has now blown a hole in the animating principle behind the Geneva Conventions by choosing to elevate an enemy that disdains the laws of war in order to facilitate the bombing of civilian targets and the beheading of individuals. The argument made by Justice John Paul Stevens is an Alice-In-Jihadland ruling that stands the Conventions on their head in order to give words the precise opposite of their plain meaning and intent.

listopencil
07-03-2006, 11:34 PM
Seems to me like this is a reaction to our own troops treating prisoners poorly at the behest of our government. What standards will we follow while we hold these people prisoner? We aren't going to treat them like US citizens, that would be a huge mistake. We need some sort of guideline and the Geneva Convention is something that has been recognised on a global level. What else are we going to do?

patteeu
07-04-2006, 10:26 AM
Seems to me like this is a reaction to our own troops treating prisoners poorly at the behest of our government. What standards will we follow while we hold these people prisoner? We aren't going to treat them like US citizens, that would be a huge mistake. We need some sort of guideline and the Geneva Convention is something that has been recognised on a global level. What else are we going to do?

Withdraw from that treaty and negotiate a new one that is based on a principle of reciprocity.

I can't think of a good reason for offering the GC-like protections to those who refuse to sign on to the treaty. There is some level of minimal treatment that would satisfy moral requirements, with or without a treaty. Beyond that, I don't see why we should allow ourselves to be bound if we aren't getting some consideration in return.

patteeu
07-04-2006, 10:34 AM
Two more excerpts:

And, of course, al-Qaida never need to sign the Conventions now, do they? As the ultimate beneficiaries of the progressive mindset, they get all the benefits with none of the obligations. We're bound, they're not.

Which should lead to:

The immediate consequence of this is that America's friends in India, Australia, Singapore, Denmark and elsewhere will conclude that this country is simply not serious and its descent into moral narcissism too advanced. The long-term consequence will be the opposite of what the justices intended -- the sidelining and eventual discarding of Geneva, at least by nations that wish to survive the depredations of the jihad.

FringeNC
07-04-2006, 11:02 AM
Two more excerpts:



Which should lead to:

Yep. The part of the ruling that stated Bush overrstepped Congressional authority in the manner in which the Gitmo thugs would be tried I really don't have a problem with. It was a reasonable ruling, whether you agree with it or not.

The part of the ruling that state Al-q is in effect, entitled to GC protections is an outrage, and one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. It's laughably absurd.

Amnorix
07-04-2006, 02:12 PM
Here's your rebuttal.

"For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062902300.html

Amnorix
07-04-2006, 02:13 PM
Here's some more good quotes, from Republicans no less (from same article):

"There is a strain of legal reasoning in this administration that believes in a time of war the other two branches have a diminished role or no role," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/g000359?nav=el) (R-S.C.), who has resisted the administration's philosophy, said in an interview. "It's sincere, it's heartfelt, but after today, it's wrong."Bruce Fein, an official in the Reagan administration, said the ruling restores balance in government. "What this decision says is, 'No, Mr. President, you can be bound by treaties and statutes,' " he said. " 'If you need to have these changed, you can go to Congress.' This idea of a coronated president instead of an inaugurated president has been dealt a sharp rebuke."

Amnorix
07-04-2006, 02:15 PM
Also note that there were 2 Republican appointees in the majority -- Kennedy and Souter.

"Joining Stevens and Breyer in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

patteeu
07-04-2006, 02:23 PM
Here's your rebuttal.

"For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062902300.html

The shaky rebuke isn't anything that a new SCOTUS justice couldn't fix.

listopencil
07-04-2006, 02:27 PM
Withdraw from that treaty and negotiate a new one that is based on a principle of reciprocity.



That's a good idea but who would we negotiate it with? Meanwhile we need a set of ground rules to prevent abuse of noncitizens and part of that is defining what abuse is. I don't like it. I don't like the idea of giving terrorists rights that, I believe, should not be extended to them. But we can't go forward treating every prisoner like a terrorist. It's wrong.

patteeu
07-04-2006, 02:29 PM
Also note that there were 2 Republican appointees in the majority -- Kennedy and Souter.

"Joining Stevens and Breyer in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

You know as well as I do that Souter is a reliable liberal vote and that Kennedy, while tending toward somewhat conservative rulings, is not unfamiliar with taking the side of Souter and his left wing cohorts from time to time. Who appointed them isn't really that interesting.

What might be interesting, though, is how narrow this ruling is and how fractured it is with all the different concurring opinions and dissents. My guess is that it had to be very narrow to achieve the 5 vote majority.

patteeu
07-04-2006, 02:33 PM
That's a good idea but who would we negotiate it with? Meanwhile we need a set of ground rules to prevent abuse of noncitizens and part of that is defining what abuse is. I don't like it. I don't like the idea of giving terrorists rights that, I believe, should not be extended to them. But we can't go forward treating every prisoner like a terrorist. It's wrong.

We should negotiate it with the others who have signed the Geneva Conventions, either bilaterally or multilaterally.

We should absolutely have ground rules on how to treat detainees, but we can establish those ourselves either through congressional action or within the executive branch.

I'm not sure what you think we are doing to "every prisoner" but I'm not aware of any widespread practices that I'd call wrong. That's not to say that there isn't something, I'm just not aware of it if there is.

SBK
07-04-2006, 03:59 PM
What pisses me off is if our troops are captured, they are killed. Meanwhile, we capture them and we must give them an attorney and a trial. Plus let them worship however many times a day, eat food customary to their diet, and GOD FORBID we bring a woman into a room.


OH THE HUMANITY!?!

listopencil
07-04-2006, 04:21 PM
We should negotiate it with the others who have signed the Geneva Conventions, either bilaterally or multilaterally.

Then we are still holding the prisoners to a document that they had no part of. Also, I don't know that we could get something any better for our purposes than the Genevea Convention through working with other countries.

We should absolutely have ground rules on how to treat detainees, but we can establish those ourselves either through congressional action or within the executive branch.

I'm not sure what you think we are doing to "every prisoner" but I'm not aware of any widespread practices that I'd call wrong. That's not to say that there isn't something, I'm just not aware of it if there is.

Just keeping them as prisoners in the first place is against how we treat our own citizens. I am not for treating them as US citizens but what "rights" do we owe them exactly? They don't seem to me to have any legal existence at all, really. In a more conventional conflict I would imagine that we would hold combatants until hostilities were over. That doesn't apply to this "war" on terror. Unless we can show that they are dangerous to our country what gives us the right to hold them at all?

|Zach|
07-04-2006, 07:50 PM
What pisses me off is if our troops are captured, they are killed. Meanwhile, we capture them and we must give them an attorney and a trial. Plus let them worship however many times a day, eat food customary to their diet, and GOD FORBID we bring a woman into a room.


OH THE HUMANITY!?!
Isn't it great not acting like them?

I love the fact that we have higher standards.

Shining light on a hill.

Why not acting the very things we are against and fighting pisses you off is beyond me.

FringeNC
07-04-2006, 08:30 PM
Isn't it great not acting like them?

I love the fact that we have higher standards.

Shining light on a hill.

Why not acting the very things we are against and fighting pisses you off is beyond me.

Problem is, it's not the Supreme Court's job to re-write what the Geneva Convention means.

patteeu
07-04-2006, 11:22 PM
Then we are still holding the prisoners to a document that they had no part of. Also, I don't know that we could get something any better for our purposes than the Genevea Convention through working with other countries.

The point of negotiating a new treaty is to eliminate any coverage for the types of prisoners we have under the agreements. We would be holding the prisoners under conditions of our choosing.

Just keeping them as prisoners in the first place is against how we treat our own citizens. I am not for treating them as US citizens but what "rights" do we owe them exactly? They don't seem to me to have any legal existence at all, really. In a more conventional conflict I would imagine that we would hold combatants until hostilities were over. That doesn't apply to this "war" on terror. Unless we can show that they are dangerous to our country what gives us the right to hold them at all?

Why not? Why doesn't holding them until hostilities cease apply to this war? We should hold them until they are tried for crimes or until the hostilities are over depending on case by case circumstances, IMO..

patteeu
07-04-2006, 11:26 PM
Isn't it great not acting like them?

I love the fact that we have higher standards.

Shining light on a hill.

Why not acting the very things we are against and fighting pisses you off is beyond me.

There is no danger of us acting like them. The list of things shortbuskid is annoyed by are several orders of magnitude away from acting like them.

listopencil
07-05-2006, 12:09 AM
The point of negotiating a new treaty is to eliminate any coverage for the types of prisoners we have under the agreements. We would be holding the prisoners under conditions of our choosing.


I see, I could go for that.



Why not? Why doesn't holding them until hostilities cease apply to this war? We should hold them until they are tried for crimes or until the hostilities are over depending on case by case circumstances, IMO..

I don't trust this government to ever aknowledge an end to the "War On Terror", it could easily be argued that the hostilities will never cease. Our military actions against the political entities of Afghanistan and Iraq are over. We are now fighting against a terrorist network. Of the people we are taking the time and effort to capture, I would think we have the evidence we need to convict them in any reasonable court situation.

I would go for trials but not in every case. How many of the people we are holding should be considered "soldiers" and how many are terrorists? I don't know. If we are holding actual soldiers they should have already been let go. I find myself distrusting this administration and its military leadership more and more almost weekly. Perhaps this is just coming from that distrust but I question our treatment of these people.

listopencil
07-05-2006, 04:34 PM
Bump.