'The President is Not a Tribunal'

Yesterday, in a major blow to the administration, a federal judge
ruled that "President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional
bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions" when he
established military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to try
detainees as war criminals. The ruling, which put a halt to the
tribunal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was just the latest in a string of
setbacks to the administration's legal approach to terrorism. In June,
the Supreme Court ruled that – despite the administration's arguments
to the contrary – prisoners were entitled to challenge their status as
"enemy combatants" in federal court. The administration has yet to
comply with that ruling and plans to fight the ruling handed down
yesterday. The Justice Department vowed to immediately appeal the
ruling and plans to seek an emergency order to prevent it from being
enforced.

BUSH'S POLICIES PUT U.S. SOLDIERS AT RISK: Judge James Robertson's
opinion yesterday touched on a basic, but frequently overlooked,
reason the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the United States – to
protect American soldiers. Judge Robertson wrote that by asserting
that the Guantanamo detainees were outside the reach of the Geneva
Conventions, the administration weakened "the United States' own
ability to demand application of the Geneva applications to Americans
captured during armed conflicts abroad."

BUSH'S MILITARY TRIBUNALS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR: Robertson ruled that
the commissions set up by the administration did not give defendants a
fair shot at defending themselves. The biggest problem is that the
prosecution could use secret evidence and unnamed witnesses to make
their case. Robertson found that no American court could operate
without "the right to confront one's accuser and the evidence." Other
problems critics of the tribunals have noted: "the translation
provided detainees has been amateurish; defense counsel has
continually operated with fewer resources than the prosecution [and]
the three-person panel that decides the case contains only one
lawyer." For recommendations on how to reform the military tribunals,
check out this report from American Progress.

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A TRIBUNAL: The Supreme Court ruled in June that
the president couldn't just declare detainees enemy combatants outside
the protection of the Geneva Conventions – detainees had a right to
have their status determined by a competent tribunal. In response, the
administration created combatant status review tribunals (CSRT) to
determine the status of detainees held at Guantanamo. The CSRTs have
been criticized "because they deny the prisoners access to lawyers and
use as evidence Bush's determination that all detainees at Guantanamo
are enemy combatants." Judge Robertson ruled that the CSRTs did not
meet the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Robertson rejected
the administration claim that "the CSRT determination that Hamdan was
a member of or affiliated with al Qaeda is also determinative of
Hamdan's prisoner-of-war status, since the President has already
determined that detained al Qaeda members are not prisoners-of-war
under the Geneva Conventions." Robertson explained: "The president is
not a tribunal." Robertson ruled that "Hamdan must be treated as a
prisoner of war unless and until a competent tribunal determines
otherwise."

Basskisser,
Have you noticed that most people are no longer starting OT political rants?

It makes for a much friendlier rec.boats.


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
'The President is Not a Tribunal'

Yesterday, in a major blow to the administration, a federal judge
ruled that "President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional
bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions" when he
established military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to try
detainees as war criminals. The ruling, which put a halt to the
tribunal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was just the latest in a string of
setbacks to the administration's legal approach to terrorism. In June,
the Supreme Court ruled that - despite the administration's arguments
to the contrary - prisoners were entitled to challenge their status as
"enemy combatants" in federal court. The administration has yet to
comply with that ruling and plans to fight the ruling handed down
yesterday. The Justice Department vowed to immediately appeal the
ruling and plans to seek an emergency order to prevent it from being
enforced.

BUSH'S POLICIES PUT U.S. SOLDIERS AT RISK: Judge James Robertson's
opinion yesterday touched on a basic, but frequently overlooked,
reason the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the United States - to
protect American soldiers. Judge Robertson wrote that by asserting
that the Guantanamo detainees were outside the reach of the Geneva
Conventions, the administration weakened "the United States' own
ability to demand application of the Geneva applications to Americans
captured during armed conflicts abroad."

BUSH'S MILITARY TRIBUNALS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR: Robertson ruled that
the commissions set up by the administration did not give defendants a
fair shot at defending themselves. The biggest problem is that the
prosecution could use secret evidence and unnamed witnesses to make
their case. Robertson found that no American court could operate
without "the right to confront one's accuser and the evidence." Other
problems critics of the tribunals have noted: "the translation
provided detainees has been amateurish; defense counsel has
continually operated with fewer resources than the prosecution [and]
the three-person panel that decides the case contains only one
lawyer." For recommendations on how to reform the military tribunals,
check out this report from American Progress.

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A TRIBUNAL: The Supreme Court ruled in June that
the president couldn't just declare detainees enemy combatants outside
the protection of the Geneva Conventions - detainees had a right to
have their status determined by a competent tribunal. In response, the
administration created combatant status review tribunals (CSRT) to
determine the status of detainees held at Guantanamo. The CSRTs have
been criticized "because they deny the prisoners access to lawyers and
use as evidence Bush's determination that all detainees at Guantanamo
are enemy combatants." Judge Robertson ruled that the CSRTs did not
meet the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Robertson rejected
the administration claim that "the CSRT determination that Hamdan was
a member of or affiliated with al Qaeda is also determinative of
Hamdan's prisoner-of-war status, since the President has already
determined that detained al Qaeda members are not prisoners-of-war
under the Geneva Conventions." Robertson explained: "The president is
not a tribunal." Robertson ruled that "Hamdan must be treated as a
prisoner of war unless and until a competent tribunal determines
otherwise."

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

BUSH'S POLICIES PUT U.S. SOLDIERS AT RISK: Judge James Robertson...

Let me guess...a liberal Clinton appointee, right?

At least the next 4 years of a Bush Presidency will see to it that no more
of these liberal judges get appointed to the Federal Courts.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
'The President is Not a Tribunal'

Yesterday, in a major blow to the administration, a federal judge
ruled that "President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional
bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions" when he
established military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to try
detainees as war criminals. The ruling, which put a halt to the
tribunal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was just the latest in a string of
setbacks to the administration's legal approach to terrorism. In June,
the Supreme Court ruled that – despite the administration's arguments
to the contrary – prisoners were entitled to challenge their status as
"enemy combatants" in federal court. The administration has yet to
comply with that ruling and plans to fight the ruling handed down
yesterday. The Justice Department vowed to immediately appeal the
ruling and plans to seek an emergency order to prevent it from being
enforced.


Without delving into partisan politics, I was glad to see this ruling.
If you are trying to convince the world that you are acting out of
morality, as we often do, then it is important to act morally, and one
of the ways you do this is by honoring international treaties and
conventions on matters such as these - even if your opponents do not.



BUSH'S POLICIES PUT U.S. SOLDIERS AT RISK: Judge James Robertson's
opinion yesterday touched on a basic, but frequently overlooked,
reason the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the United States – to
protect American soldiers. Judge Robertson wrote that by asserting
that the Guantanamo detainees were outside the reach of the Geneva
Conventions, the administration weakened "the United States' own
ability to demand application of the Geneva applications to Americans
captured during armed conflicts abroad."

Precisely right.

It's only practical to abide by the Geneva Convention when you're fighting
an enemy that is a signatory to the agreement, and actually abides by it
themselves. Terrorists do not abide by the Geneva Convention, aren't
signatories to the agreement, and should not be entitled to its
protections...particularly because they themselves don't abide by the
accepted "rules of war".

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
'The President is Not a Tribunal'

Yesterday, in a major blow to the administration, a federal judge
ruled that "President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional
bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions" when he
established military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to try
detainees as war criminals. The ruling, which put a halt to the
tribunal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was just the latest in a string of
setbacks to the administration's legal approach to terrorism. In June,
the Supreme Court ruled that – despite the administration's arguments
to the contrary – prisoners were entitled to challenge their status as
"enemy combatants" in federal court. The administration has yet to
comply with that ruling and plans to fight the ruling handed down
yesterday. The Justice Department vowed to immediately appeal the
ruling and plans to seek an emergency order to prevent it from being
enforced.


Without delving into partisan politics, I was glad to see this ruling.
If you are trying to convince the world that you are acting out of
morality, as we often do, then it is important to act morally, and one
of the ways you do this is by honoring international treaties and
conventions on matters such as these - even if your opponents do not.



BUSH'S POLICIES PUT U.S. SOLDIERS AT RISK: Judge James Robertson's
opinion yesterday touched on a basic, but frequently overlooked,
reason the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the United States – to
protect American soldiers. Judge Robertson wrote that by asserting
that the Guantanamo detainees were outside the reach of the Geneva
Conventions, the administration weakened "the United States' own
ability to demand application of the Geneva applications to Americans
captured during armed conflicts abroad."

Precisely right.

It's only practical to abide by the Geneva Convention when you're
fighting
an enemy that is a signatory to the agreement, and actually abides by it
themselves. Terrorists do not abide by the Geneva Convention, aren't
signatories to the agreement, and should not be entitled to its
protections...particularly because they themselves don't abide by the
accepted "rules of war".



Sorry. You either obey the law and treaties or you do not.

As you liberals like to say: "it's not quite so black and white". The GC
specifically addresses the issue of illegal combatants...and states that
they're not entitled to protection under the GC.

This will be a major issue in the coming months...particularly with the
appointment of the new Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales:


"Gonzales has been at the center of developing Bush's positions on balancing
civil liberties with waging the war on terrorism - opening the White House
counsel to the same line of criticism that has dogged Ashcroft.

For instance, Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy -
essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought out in the
lower courts - of detaining certain terrorism suspects for extended periods
without access to lawyers or courts.

He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the
right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing
protections to prisoners of war. "



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041110/D8694G201.html

On 10 Nov 2004 05:33:40 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Snipped the crap.

Some judges are dip****s.

How big is that Chapparel? What kind of engine are you running?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:45:00 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Without delving into partisan politics,

Then don't.

Have you taken the Yo Ho back up to Tri-State yet?


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 10 Nov 2004 05:33:40 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Snipped the crap.

Some judges are dip****s.

How big is that Chapparel? What kind of engine are you running?

Quit derailing the OT threads! ;-)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:05:27 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
'The President is Not a Tribunal'

Yesterday, in a major blow to the administration, a federal judge
ruled that "President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional
bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions" when he
established military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to try
detainees as war criminals. The ruling, which put a halt to the
tribunal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was just the latest in a string of
setbacks to the administration's legal approach to terrorism. In June,
the Supreme Court ruled that – despite the administration's arguments
to the contrary – prisoners were entitled to challenge their status as
"enemy combatants" in federal court. The administration has yet to
comply with that ruling and plans to fight the ruling handed down
yesterday. The Justice Department vowed to immediately appeal the
ruling and plans to seek an emergency order to prevent it from being
enforced.


Without delving into partisan politics, I was glad to see this ruling.
If you are trying to convince the world that you are acting out of
morality, as we often do, then it is important to act morally, and one
of the ways you do this is by honoring international treaties and
conventions on matters such as these - even if your opponents do not.



BUSH'S POLICIES PUT U.S. SOLDIERS AT RISK: Judge James Robertson's
opinion yesterday touched on a basic, but frequently overlooked,
reason the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the United States – to
protect American soldiers. Judge Robertson wrote that by asserting
that the Guantanamo detainees were outside the reach of the Geneva
Conventions, the administration weakened "the United States' own
ability to demand application of the Geneva applications to Americans
captured during armed conflicts abroad."

Precisely right.

It's only practical to abide by the Geneva Convention when you're
fighting
an enemy that is a signatory to the agreement, and actually abides by it
themselves. Terrorists do not abide by the Geneva Convention, aren't
signatories to the agreement, and should not be entitled to its
protections...particularly because they themselves don't abide by the
accepted "rules of war".



Sorry. You either obey the law and treaties or you do not.

As you liberals like to say: "it's not quite so black and white". The GC
specifically addresses the issue of illegal combatants...and states that
they're not entitled to protection under the GC.

That's a canard, a bull**** issue.


No, it's *the* issue. It wouldn't allow for liberal bitching and
whining however, so I can understand your comment.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:05:27 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
'The President is Not a Tribunal'

Yesterday, in a major blow to the administration, a federal judge
ruled that "President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional
bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions" when he
established military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to try
detainees as war criminals. The ruling, which put a halt to the
tribunal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was just the latest in a string of
setbacks to the administration's legal approach to terrorism. In
June,
the Supreme Court ruled that - despite the administration's
arguments
to the contrary - prisoners were entitled to challenge their status
as
"enemy combatants" in federal court. The administration has yet to
comply with that ruling and plans to fight the ruling handed down
yesterday. The Justice Department vowed to immediately appeal the
ruling and plans to seek an emergency order to prevent it from being
enforced.


Without delving into partisan politics, I was glad to see this
ruling.
If you are trying to convince the world that you are acting out of
morality, as we often do, then it is important to act morally, and
one
of the ways you do this is by honoring international treaties and
conventions on matters such as these - even if your opponents do not.



BUSH'S POLICIES PUT U.S. SOLDIERS AT RISK: Judge James Robertson's
opinion yesterday touched on a basic, but frequently overlooked,
reason the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the United States -
to
protect American soldiers. Judge Robertson wrote that by asserting
that the Guantanamo detainees were outside the reach of the Geneva
Conventions, the administration weakened "the United States' own
ability to demand application of the Geneva applications to
Americans
captured during armed conflicts abroad."

Precisely right.

It's only practical to abide by the Geneva Convention when you're
fighting
an enemy that is a signatory to the agreement, and actually abides by
it
themselves. Terrorists do not abide by the Geneva Convention, aren't
signatories to the agreement, and should not be entitled to its
protections...particularly because they themselves don't abide by the
accepted "rules of war".



Sorry. You either obey the law and treaties or you do not.

As you liberals like to say: "it's not quite so black and white". The
GC
specifically addresses the issue of illegal combatants...and states that
they're not entitled to protection under the GC.

That's a canard, a bull**** issue.


No, it's *the* issue. It wouldn't allow for liberal bitching and
whining however, so I can understand your comment.

Welcome back, JohnH!