Supreme Court and Al Qaeda
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Osama Bin Ladens driver. He's challenging the military tribunals that are being used with detainees are illegal, and that he's been denied his rights according to the Geneva Convention.
I'm not sure of the legality of the tribunals, however, I do know that he's not a Prisoner of War, he doesn't meet the Geneva Convention guidelines:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
I'm pretty sure that al Qaeda doesn't fit those definitions, especially since the legitimate (prewar) governments in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't recognize them as members of their national militias.
What do you think?
I'm not sure of the legality of the tribunals, however, I do know that he's not a Prisoner of War, he doesn't meet the Geneva Convention guidelines:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
I'm pretty sure that al Qaeda doesn't fit those definitions, especially since the legitimate (prewar) governments in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't recognize them as members of their national militias.
What do you think?
posted by Crazy Politico at 6:41 AM
6Comments:
You have to ask?
Of course they aren't bound by the Geneva convention!
It rankles me that a huge faction in this country thinks they do, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary.
Linking you! Thanks foir the props!
I have to agree, especially in light of condition (d). They are terrorists, plain and simple. Stateless terrorists at that. If this guy is an admitted member of Al Qaeda then chop him off.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Try this again:
Is there an echo in here? 2b and 2d do not apply in this situation. Let's hope the Supreme Count can figure this out.
I was pretty much of the same opinion, how the hell can you claim they are being denied rights under the Geneva convention when it doesn't apply
Of course, it's the same lawyers who want them (non-citizens) to get rights under our Constitution.
I think Nedreck summed it up pretty well.
Post a Comment
<< Home