Supreme Court to hear case of enemy combatant on US soil

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Maybe some of the forum members here who think these people are just misunderstood could offer to take them up in their own home? Maybe the Obama's could invite a couple of them to stay in the Lincoln bedroom?

Yeah man, the Constitution and the Geneva Convention should only apply to people we think are good guys. That's what the founding fathers meant for the Bill of Rights, they just forgot to add that part in.

Just as a side note, if a country or entity doesn't follow the GC, then when England captures them british troops don't follow the GC either.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but certainly "civilian terrorists" don't abide by the conventions. Is there a constitutional link to treaties that affects this case? If not, then it's really a moot point anyways.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yeah man, the Constitution and the Geneva Convention should only apply to people we think are good guys. That's what the founding fathers meant for the Bill of Rights, they just forgot to add that part in.

Just as a side note, if a country or entity doesn't follow the GC, then when England captures them british troops don't follow the GC either.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but certainly "civilian terrorists" don't abide by the conventions. Is there a constitutional link to treaties that affects this case? If not, then it's really a moot point anyways.

It's only partially a Constitutional thing, but under US law treaties are the equivalent of federal law, the 'supreme law of the land'. It's certainly not up to our government to decide when and if it follows treaties to which we are signatory.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, I really don't think so. If the entire world is a battlefield then then any person who ever acts against the US is an illegal enemy combatant. The true test is that not even our own government is attempting to make that claim. So, no.

<for the most part> I would agree to this. *shrug* difference of opinion I guess.

I'm sorry, but that's insanity.

So be it We all have our opinions eh? Id be interested to know your interpretation of "enemy soil" in regards to Geneva convention.

Soil that the enemy exercises legal or practical control over, why? To try and say that the battlefield covers the entire world renders the definition of 'battlefield' pointless. Not only that, but when considering the definition of combatant in the GC a worldwide battlefield defies not only belief but common sense. Someone living in their house in the middle of a random country must continually wear the uniform and brandish the colors of a foreign army in order to oppose the US? That's awfully silly.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yeah man, the Constitution and the Geneva Convention should only apply to people we think are good guys. That's what the founding fathers meant for the Bill of Rights, they just forgot to add that part in.

Just as a side note, if a country or entity doesn't follow the GC, then when England captures them british troops don't follow the GC either.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but certainly "civilian terrorists" don't abide by the conventions. Is there a constitutional link to treaties that affects this case? If not, then it's really a moot point anyways.

It's only partially a Constitutional thing, but under US law treaties are the equivalent of federal law, the 'supreme law of the land'. It's certainly not up to our government to decide when and if it follows treaties to which we are signatory.

Just to clear this up, treaties may be equivalent to federal law, but that's only if they're found to be self-executing or have the appropriate legislation. For example, the Geneva Conventions were found to be non-self executing, but were executed under another federal law (UCMJ). Non-self executing treaties have no enforcement in domestic US courts without proper legislation from Congress.

The treaty may be binding in international law, but it may have no binding effect in our domestic courts.

Anyways, if I had to guess on how the Supreme Court would rule on this issue, I would say that the Supreme Court would probably rule that he needs some due process rights and will check Executive power here to some degree.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, I really don't think so. If the entire world is a battlefield then then any person who ever acts against the US is an illegal enemy combatant. The true test is that not even our own government is attempting to make that claim. So, no.

<for the most part> I would agree to this. *shrug* difference of opinion I guess.

I'm sorry, but that's insanity.

So be it We all have our opinions eh? Id be interested to know your interpretation of "enemy soil" in regards to Geneva convention.

Soil that the enemy exercises legal or practical control over, why? To try and say that the battlefield covers the entire world renders the definition of 'battlefield' pointless. Not only that, but when considering the definition of combatant in the GC a worldwide battlefield defies not only belief but common sense. Someone living in their house in the middle of a random country must continually wear the uniform and brandish the colors of a foreign army in order to oppose the US? That's awfully silly.

Therein lies the problem. 99% of the time, these groups dont have control of ANYTHING, much less a plot of land somewhere (without the protection and shelter of a corrupt government of course). Does "practical control" include by force?

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, I really don't think so. If the entire world is a battlefield then then any person who ever acts against the US is an illegal enemy combatant. The true test is that not even our own government is attempting to make that claim. So, no.

<for the most part> I would agree to this. *shrug* difference of opinion I guess.

I'm sorry, but that's insanity.

So be it We all have our opinions eh? Id be interested to know your interpretation of "enemy soil" in regards to Geneva convention.

Soil that the enemy exercises legal or practical control over, why? To try and say that the battlefield covers the entire world renders the definition of 'battlefield' pointless. Not only that, but when considering the definition of combatant in the GC a worldwide battlefield defies not only belief but common sense. Someone living in their house in the middle of a random country must continually wear the uniform and brandish the colors of a foreign army in order to oppose the US? That's awfully silly.

There is no soil in their practical or legal control, because these people are not an organized military or militia force, they arent fighting in the interest of or commanded by the state, they dont abide by laws of armed conflict, and they basically dont do anything that even puts them near the definition of a lawful combatant. They are thugs, random pickups off the streets, and spread out over numerous countries. As such, the "battlefield" is an arbitrary term in this situation. There is no one physical battlefield when you arent fighting a war against an actual organized military force.

By the way, I dont believe GC or Title 10 U.S. Code make mention of "battlefield" when defining combatants. It basically boils down to one of two choices: You are attacking us, and 1. part of an organized, law abiding force, or 2. you are not.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, I really don't think so. If the entire world is a battlefield then then any person who ever acts against the US is an illegal enemy combatant. The true test is that not even our own government is attempting to make that claim. So, no.

<for the most part> I would agree to this. *shrug* difference of opinion I guess.

I'm sorry, but that's insanity.

So be it We all have our opinions eh? Id be interested to know your interpretation of "enemy soil" in regards to Geneva convention.

Soil that the enemy exercises legal or practical control over, why? To try and say that the battlefield covers the entire world renders the definition of 'battlefield' pointless. Not only that, but when considering the definition of combatant in the GC a worldwide battlefield defies not only belief but common sense. Someone living in their house in the middle of a random country must continually wear the uniform and brandish the colors of a foreign army in order to oppose the US? That's awfully silly.

There is no soil in their practical or legal control, because these people are not an organized military or militia force, they arent fighting in the interest of or commanded by the state, they dont abide by laws of armed conflict, and they basically dont do anything that even puts them near the definition of a lawful combatant. They are thugs, random pickups off the streets, and spread out over numerous countries. As such, the "battlefield" is an arbitrary term in this situation. There is no one physical battlefield when you arent fighting a war against an actual organized military force.

By the way, I dont believe GC or Title 10 U.S. Code make mention of "battlefield" when defining combatants. It basically boils down to one of two choices: You are attacking us, and 1. part of an organized, law abiding force, or 2. you are not.

Incorrect. The Taliban excercised, at a minimum, effective control over the country of Afghanistan. (while we didn't recognize them, it was probably legal control as well... but that doesn't seem to matter) That was enemy soil. If you take the definition blackangst is trying to use then someone building a pipe bomb in their basement to blow up something is in violation of the Geneva Convention and is an unlawful enemy combatant because they weren't wearing some arbitrary uniform while they were doing so.

The concept of the worldwide battlefield that is everywhere and nowhere all at once twists and distorts both the wording and the spirit of the GC to a form past which it is even recognizable as a useful document. Why you guys would try and argue this is simply beyond me.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Just to clear this up, treaties may be equivalent to federal law, but that's only if they're found to be self-executing or have the appropriate legislation. For example, the Geneva Conventions were found to be non-self executing, but were executed under another federal law (UCMJ). Non-self executing treaties have no enforcement in domestic US courts without proper legislation from Congress.

The treaty may be binding in international law, but it may have no binding effect in our domestic courts.

Anyways, if I had to guess on how the Supreme Court would rule on this issue, I would say that the Supreme Court would probably rule that he needs some due process rights and will check Executive power here to some degree.

Ok, thats along the lines of what I was thinking.