From: "Rich Gauszka" 

Is Bush never wrong?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/29/DI2006062901
125.html

Anonymous: Reports I've read have usually emphasized the government's
argument that, as "enemy combatants," the prisoners were not
entitled to the rights afforded the Geneva Convention NOR rights under the
U.S. Constitution. I recall that the government argued that since the
prisoners weren't on U.S. territory they weren't entitled to protection
under the U.S. Constitution. Was this because they were on overseas
territory (e.g., U.S. military base) or because we argued that Guantanamo
was still legally Cuban territory leased to the U.S? In that case, are we
arguing that Castro is right to say Guantanamo belongs to Cuba, or that we
still recognize the Batista government? I'm confused.

Derek Jinks: From 2001-2004, the government argued, relying on a World War
II precedent, that US federal courts had no habeas jurisdiction over
persons detained as enemy combatants outside of the sovereign territory of
the US. Because the GTMO lease agreement makes clear that Cuba retains
ultimate sovereignty over the territory in question, the government
maintained that US courts had no jurisdiction over enemy combatants
detained at GTMO--even though the US exerices effective control over the
territory. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in 2004--which is why
the Hamdan case moved forward in the first place.

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: The Bush administration took the liberty of ruling, by
administrative fiat, that none of the Guantanamo detainees qualified for
any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Do you know if Bush or any executive branch spokesmen claimed the detainees
were not lawful combatants because they didn't satisfy the article 4
criteria?

Derek Jinks: Terrific question. The issue is a complex, technical one.
Article 4 does specify 4 criteria that must be satisfied for SOME detainees
to receive POW status. These criteria are: they must carry their arms
openly; wear a fixed, distinctive sign; operate under a responsible command
structure; and observe the laws of war. The Bush administration has
maintained that neither the al Qaeda nor the Taliban fighters complied with
ANY of the four criteria. Here is the rub, though. These four criteria
apply only to ONE category of enemy combatants---organized forces not
forming part of the regular armed forces of a state party to the conflict.
These criteria do NOT apply to members of the regular armed forces. So,
members of the regular Taliban army are entitled to POW status irrespective
of whether they meet the criteria. Several detainees at GTMO fall into this
category.



"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:44a4142e{at}w3.nls.net...
> Breyer can have an opinion but the court didn't have constitutional
> authority to issue ANY opinion on this because congress took away federal
> court jurisdiction on this case in 2005.  5 of the Supremes decided to
> ignore that and pretend they did have jurisdiction to issue an opinion.
> However, the fact remains the decision, imho and the opinion of 4 justices
> on the Supremes, is that by continuing jurisdiction and expressing any
> opinion the court is acting in violation of the constitution.
>
> Gary
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:44a3f8e8{at}w3.nls.net...
>> In his own separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "Congress has
>> not issued the executive a 'blank check."'
>>
>> "Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to
>> create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents
>> the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he
>> believes necessary," Breyer wrote.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:44a3f700{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> The court's ruling is unconstitutional.  The constitution gives Congress
>>> the power to determine the jurisdiction of the court.  Congress passed a
>>> law in 2005 that clearly stripped jurisdiction of this case from the
>>> Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's refusal to follow the law and
>>> constitution is a blatant power grab by the court and an
>>> unconstitutional exercise that the President has absolutely no
>>> requirement to follow.
>>>
>>> If only Bush was gutsy enough to tell the court to take its
>>> unconstitutional opinion and go to hell, but instead he will likely get
>>> congress to amend a couple statutes and do away with the effect of this
>>> unconstitutional opinion thereby.
>>>
>>> With this decision the Supreme Court takes another step down the road
>>> towards its complete loss of moral authority to bind the citizens of
>>> this country.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:44a3f4fa$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>>> news:44a3f1a8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5129904.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>  Phil Payne
>>>>>  http://www.isham-research.co.uk
>>>>>  +44 7833 654 800
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's that damn Geneva convention again 
>>>>
>>>> The court's ruling that the proceedings violated Geneva
Conventions is
>>>> seen as a major blow to the administration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5