• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

BBC: USSC to hear Afghan Camp X-ray appeals

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
71
Hi,

Just saw this on the BBC.

Transcript of BBC page given below:

The US Supreme Court is to hear appeals by Afghan war detainees at the US military's Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba who say they are being held illegally.

The court will review a ruling that lower courts do not have the jurisdiction to consider claims that inmates are being held in breach of international law.

About 650 detainees from more than 40 countries are being held at the camp.

The US says they are not protected by laws relating to prisoners of war.
Do you think this could lead to a contraversial decision - or do you think it's a case of "going through the motions"?

Cheers,

Andy
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

Just saw this on the BBC.

Transcript of BBC page given below:

The US Supreme Court is to hear appeals by Afghan war detainees at the US military's Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba who say they are being held illegally.

The court will review a ruling that lower courts do not have the jurisdiction to consider claims that inmates are being held in breach of international law.

About 650 detainees from more than 40 countries are being held at the camp.

The US says they are not protected by laws relating to prisoners of war.
Do you think this could lead to a contraversial decision - or do you think it's a case of "going through the motions"?

Cheers,

Andy
1. I don't think our Supreme Court has ever been accused of "going through the motions". The small number of cases that they do hear are given all the seriousness and due attention that our nations highest court can bring to bear.

2. IMO a special tribunal (or whatever the right words are) to determine the status of detainees, as required by the Geneva Convention, should have been convened long ago.

3. Don't be surprised if the status of those detainees is left to the discretion of the President. There is ample precedent available that will show that the SC is very hesitant to intervene in this type of matter. It has been the SC position that the Executive branch is responsible for waging war and providing for the security of our nation and they have not intervened in the past. However these are not German spies caught on our soil so maybe their decision will be different this time. Only time will tell.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
71
1. I don't think our Supreme Court has ever been accused of "going through the motions". The small number of cases that they do hear are given all the seriousness and due attention that our nations highest court can bring to bear.

2. IMO a special tribunal (or whatever the right words are) to determine the status of detainees, as required by the Geneva Convention, should have been convened long ago.

3. Don't be surprised if the status of those detainees is left to the discretion of the President. There is ample precedent available that will show that the SC is very hesitant to intervene in this type of matter. It has been the SC position that the Executive branch is responsible for waging war and providing for the security of our nation and they have not intervened in the past. However these are not German spies caught on our soil so maybe their decision will be different this time. Only time will tell.
Thanks.

Andy
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
They could still rule that the President isn't doing his duty or isn't conforming to our treaties, no? Or would this be properly done via an impeachment, instead?
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
I don't think it matters what they say, the administrative branch has grown too powerful and the military would not follow a court order that goes against their policies anyways. Looks at the shoe-bomber guy, they just ignore court orders.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY