(Untitled)

[danaoshee]

I don't normally post political things, but I think this needs to get publicized.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/13/mccain-guantanamo-ruling-one-of-the-worst-decisions-in-history/

Whatever you think of Obama, I'

Comments

But they were captured on a battlefield

[notmy_realname]

(where it seems to me that military, not civilian, law should apply), they were captured outside US territory (where in my opinion US civilian law shouldn't apply), charged with doing things in violation of the Geneva Conventions on War (not in violation of US civilian law), and are currently being held in a different location outside US territory (where I still think US civilian law shouldn't apply).

So to my thinking, the question in such a circumstance shouldn't be whether they have any rights at all, but rather why rights under civilian rather than military law apply, and why judicial review of whatever rights they are entitled to should come from US civilian courts rather than a military tribunal? It just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Whatever you think of Bush or McCain on other issues, I really do think they're right on this score because of these factors, and that the majority of the Supreme Court is completely off its collective rocker here. Is this a totally irrational position?

In any case, I'd surely admit, given the quotes you gave from McCain, that he doesn't make this argument very well.

Re: But they were captured on a battlefield

[danaoshee]

Well, the problem with the decision as I read it earlier is that the reason they were addressing the case in the first place is that enemy combatants are still entitled to an equal hearing, which they weren't getting - and rather then attempt to change the different not-good-enough rights they were getting to "equal enough" hearing rights, the supreme court decided fuck this, we're getting them rights immediately rather then screw around with improving the alternate trial method.

Re: But they were captured on a battlefield

[notmy_realname]

But it's not an "alternate trial method", it's the specific trial method called for in the Geneva Convention as ratified into law by the US Congress; they shouldn't have any choice but to work within it, because the Convention doesn't offer any other option. The Supreme Court shouldn't have the authority to make up new rights or laws completely out of thin air; in this case, the supposed right of civilian court review of military status. And I say that COMPLETELY REGARDLESS of what's being done to the detainees; if they're not getting some right that they think they are supposed to be getting, the US civilian court system is STILL NOT the appropriate venue for redress of grievances of foreign fighters captured on foreign soil being held on foreign soil for activities that are illegal under military rather than civilian law; that jurisdiction lies with the military tribunals of the detaining nation, or perhaps ultimately the UN International Court of Justice, but certainly not any civilian court. Basically, the US Supreme Court really ought to have more compelling legal reasoning than just saying "Fuck this".