[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: GITMO Detainees Can Challenge Detention

[Donovan Arnold]

Chas,

 
 
You are incorrect on ALL Counts of your last email:
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case held that:
 
"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to
 trial and punishment by military tribunals."
 
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1
http://www.greenbag.org/goldsmith%203-28-06.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=618
Best Regards,
 
Donovan

--- On Sun, 6/15/08, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:

From: PAN>Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: GITMO Detainees Can Challenge Detention
To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Cc: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>, "Tom Hansen" <idahotom at hotmail.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 5:27 PM

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 16:13, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Now, you are doing it again. Just going along. Because Bush is a bad
> president, and abused his power, we want to strip the right of the
military
> to contain and detain enemy combatants trying to kill them and you.

This power wasn't granted until post-9/11.   Specifically, the
government means alleged members and supporters of al Qaida or the
Taliban when it says "enemy combatants."  Properly, our Gitmo
detainees should be prisoners of war, with all of the attendant rights
under the Hague and Geneva Conventions.  So this isn't so much a
matter of stripping the military of a right that it has historically
had, but of restoring  legal rights to prisoners -- rights which were
taken away with dubious justification, and during a time of public
hysteria.

> When President Obama tries to get troops in Afghanistan and
> Pakistan to take out the Taliban but cannot, because US Troops cannot
Shoot,
> Contain, or Detain the unlawful combatants

On the battlefield, our troops will be able shoot as many enemy
soldiers as they please.  Once they have been captured, they are
prisoners of  war, and can and will be contained and detained, but
that containment and detainment will be in accordance with the Hague
and Geneva Conventions.

Remember that the relevant chapters and articles of the Hague and
Geneva Conventions were enacted so that neither we, nor anyone else,
would repeat the WWII atrocities of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany.
If you don't believe that we are capable of such atrocities, I point
to Abu Ghraib as a foretaste.  Also remember that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib
are military prisons with public identities.  What happens to those
prisoners that are in the many CIA secret prisons -- "black sites" --
that exist in countries such as Thailand, Afghanistan, and several
Eastern European democracies?

Chas


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080615/bc9ae68d/attachment.html