Nice try, though.

Same deal with FISA. The president decides that FISA is outdated and can’t be used to respond to the threats facing our country today? Fine. Then go to Congress, propose a new bill, and work to see it turned into a law. Don’t just break the law. Don’t just make up new laws and pretend they’re legal because you said so. The former is criminal. The latter is dictatorial. We have this wonderful system in place whereby laws can change as the result of a Constitutionally-defined democratic system! Use it!

“In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

On the other hand, there is nothing that incompetence loves more than secrecy.

http://www.shelter-island.org/german_spies.html

By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has likewise recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission…

Spies and saboteurs know what they’re getting into. Why do you want to protect this guy? A military commission has rules of jurisprudence to follow as well. Don’t you trust the troops you claim to ’support’ to give a fair trial?

This is an absurd strawman. No one wants to protect enemies of the United States. What people do want are a) that the determination of who is an enemy of the US be made through a legal process, not by fiat or whim; b) that actions by the government be legal according to the Constitution and that if current laws are inadequate, the government act to change those laws through the legal Constitutional process; and c) that no branch of the government or officer of the government be free of any legal restrictions on action.

That is, if this guy is an enemy, then detain him or punish him or whatever. Just do it legally. Remember things like checks and balances? Rule of law? Democracy? How did the party of small government become the party of “let the president detain, convict, imprison, and torture anyone he wants at will with no recourse via a process established by executive fiat”?

They are doing it legally. Who do you think you are, the Supreme Court?

But terrorists deserve better, Neo. The military are just myrmidons. But the terrorists are true freedom fighters!

Which is it, guys?

Simple. Whatever laws benefit the Law, gets enforced. Whatever Laws prevent the Left from exploiting people, gets canned.

I don’t think anyone would complain if the people we’re holding in Guantanamo (and elsewhere) were tried in Courts Martial like U.S. military personnel are.

But, seeing as a court martial gives defendants the right to:

1. See and challenge the evidence against them.
2. Appeal a finding of guilty to…U.S. civilian appeals courts.

it really wouldn’t solve the problems the pro star chamber crowd has with trying these guys in civilian courts in the first place.

Maybe you could cite the relevant Geneva Convention number and article that talks about “illegal comabtants?”

If you are talking about Convention IV, Article 5, the accused still have to be treated humanely and given a fair and speedy trial:

Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Either way, under our laws or the Geneva Conventions (which are actually part of our laws, btw), the U.S. government can’t just label someone an “illegal combatant” and throw them into a dungeon for eternity.

Please don’t feel ashamed of your ignorance, however. If your higher education took place after about 1965 you have simply benefitted from “Education Lite; Better Self Image, and Zero Calories.” You really need a closer read of your “cut and paste” along with the case law.

Neo, is “not alleging otherwise” tantamount to admission of guilty as charged?

Maybe I missed something, but I can only find that al-Marri has denied all charges, and that the only witnesses against him are other detainees.

None of that matters. If the government wants to imprison someone, it must not be permitted to do so without the prisoner having recourse to defense. That’s a bedrock principle of the United States and our way of life.

Hello, isn’t the United States a battlefield in this war. What else do they need to admit that. This type of rulings will simply make the U.S. Battlefield issue more clear………steve

I did. To demonstrate the difference with which we handle our citizens involved in treason or spying, and those who are not citizens involved in spying. The former are “citizens” with Constitutional protections; the latter are “illegal combatants” and come under Geneva.
Alphie, since you typed all that above, I’ll assume you actually read it. It actually supports my argument. “..such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and priveleges under the present Convention…”.
“..be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication..”.
Unless “..in case of trial,..”. So, by your own Convention quotes, we “may” choose to give him a trail, or we “may not”, depending upon “..the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.”
Don’t you get tired of shooting yourself in the foot, Alphie?

I just snipped one article from the 4th Geneva Convention. There are 158 more articles to it.

Read the whole thing before claiming it backs up your Abu Ghraib/Star Chamber idea of justice.

I am assuming that you’re familiar, at least in passing, with the provisions of the Geneva Convention and Article 4. Given your reading on it, what is your take on the distinctions between insurgents, volunteers, and mercenaries.

I’ve been chewing through it a while, and it seems that if one grants reasonable interpretation to those three roles, then the role played by foreign jihadists in Iraq really doesn’t properly fit (or even trend) towards any one of those three categories.

It also does, I suppose beg the question of the interpretation of these strictures when very arguably those we fight aren’t represented by a contracting state.

Any thoughts?

BRD

In any case, I’ve done some research in passing on the matter a few months back, but am by no means an expert.

The things I’ve been most interested in have to do with the evolution of the Convention and the Laws of Ground Warfare. Especially with questions regarding intent, redress, retaliation and deterrence.

I had been hoping that perhaps some folks here might be familiar with the concepts in the Convention, and that - maybe - folks might have some insights (that aren’t ten pounds of partisan sniping, wrapped in a five pound sack of pseudo-legalese)

Niter North Allis Township, Michigan List of universities in Croatia Jamaican Girl Výrona Starstreak Clinton morrisson Motor Vehicle Safety Armando Alejandro Estrada Cambridge (ON) …