Login : Register Home : Tags

illegal combatants

Washington gets soft on illegality

Anglosphere

This entry could have been called something like "SCOTUS Lunacy" to keep a Simply American tradition, because the White House has just completely lost it. Near-amnesty for illegal immigrants was heralded before. Now it is time to get soft on illegal combatants as well:

The Pentagon outlined the new standards to the military in a 7 July memo.

The directive says all military detainees are entitled to humane treatment and to certain basic legal standards when they come to trial, as required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Sure (and I've said this before), but what about article 4A of the third Geneva convention?

Art. 4. A. 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:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Illegal combatants fail those requirements. Whatever law or treaty applies to them, the Geneva Convention explicitly does not. President Bush has made a huge mistake by bowing to Supreme Court pressure. Stay the course my ass.

So tell me, are there any explicit instructions in the Constitution that anyone would like to see ignored?

How terrorism became legal

Anglosphere

This week, in a landmark case, the US Supreme Court awarded terrorists extraordinary legal protection:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

All across the world, liberals rejoiced. And that while this ruling is, of course, major insanity.

I'm very much in favour of some sort of legal framework for illegal combatants. But it is absurd that in a time of war, non-US citizens should get protection under US law. It is also absurd that terrorists should get protection under the Geneva conventions, even when said conventions explicitly exclude them. To me, extending the application of law outside of the intended scope is by no means correctly interpreting law. But then again, I am no statist nor a sympathiser of terrorists.

Pirate's Cove has a very nice summary of various responses.

© Copyright 1995-2008 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

Tom has more friends but mine are prettier! (#1/1)