[Xantar]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I am aware of the entire document, but I only quoted the part that SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES those detained by our policy because I know no one would want to read the whole thing. These areas that are bullet pointed are put in place for a reason:

- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
- that of carrying arms openly;
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The fixed distinctive sign and conduct portions exclude most of those that we detain. That said, if we are detaining any that did follow all of the GC rules, then they should be provided the protections. There might be areas in the GC that could be interpreted to protect these illegal combatants... if these bullet points didn't specifically exclude their protection. Now in a document that is a bit ambiguous, don't you think that such specific exclusions were put in place for a reason and with purpose? I have to think that they are full in the spirit of the document.

Those bullet points aren't meant to exclude anything. The overarching paragraph says, "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." Your bullet points describe one of the categories of detainees, but there are many other possible categories which is why I referenced the entire section of the Accords. As I pointed out, detainees arguably belong in one of the other categories which includes, "Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power." Paragraph 2.1 could also be argued to apply although I don't seriously think the Supreme Court would accept that.

Also, referring to the contract with humanity, once again I'll bring up the specific exclusions. We signed a treaty with humanity, not terrorists who refuse to follow the codes given. The GC even gives the ability for rebels and resistance fighters to be recognied by its articles, but those that we are fighting ignore them and refuse to operate under insignia or proper conduct. If they refuse to follow the rules of the GC, why should we be expected to operate under a disadvantage and respect their rights under it?

Because we're better than them. And before you say it, yes I am willing to allow more of us to be killed for that reason. If we are all fighting the war on terror in order to preserve our liberties, we should all be willing to lay our lives on the line to protect those liberties and ideals. And really, I don't mean to be glib, but this war on terror is pretty small potatoes as wars go. And besides that, I don't see how requiring all testimony to be sworn and requiring that every detainee must have a specific charge is going to make another terrorist attack more likely.

But that's a difference in philosophy, and although I think I understand where you're coming from, all of that is not the issue here. As I said before, the Supreme Court did not specifically make a decision about whether the Geneva Conventions apply to detainees under the unlawful combatant label. It said that the decision whether or not to apply those standards is properly made by the Congress. Congress may decide collectively that it agrees with you and that illegal combatants do not receive protections under the Conventions. This is pretty typical of the Supreme Court, actually. Particularly when its members are as divided as they are now, the Supreme Court tends to base its decisions on little procedural issues like this rather than trying to make some kind of ethical statement. I have the feeling that Anthony Kennedy wouldn't have joined into the majority if the decision had been "the camps must go."

BTW, what are your thoughts about the imminent domain decision to allow private companies to force you to sell your property? Seems like a recipe for extreme corruption and abuse to me, all in the name of higher local government revenues. Dispicable (and I don't use that word often).

I have no idea. I've heard nothing about this decision. Is there a link I could look at?