Login : Register Home : Tags

SCOTUS

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.

Illegal combatants now legal

Anglosphere

In a blow to the Bush administration, secularism and sanity, the US Supreme Court has decided unanimously that illegal activities are allowed in the name of religion.

Justices, in their first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts, moved decisively to keep the government out of a church's religious practice.

Federal drug agents should have been barred from confiscating the hoasca tea of the Brazil-based church, Roberts wrote in the decision.

The tea, which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered sacred to members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, which has a blend of Christian beliefs and South American traditions. Members believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea, which is consumed twice a month at four-hour ceremonies.

Brilliant. As a libertarian I am in favour of legalisation of harmless drug use, but I have to disapprove of the actual argumentation in this particular case because it is based on religion and not harm done.

Apparently it is okay to ignore federal narcotics law and import treaties for the sake of foreign-based churches. Then where do we draw the line? What other laws and treaties should not apply to members of a religion?

How about the Geneva convention or the right to life. If memory serves me right, I recall a number of people who believe they can understand a bloke called Allah only by killing others while concealed in civilian clothing. We could call these people illegal combatants or terrorists or tyrannic fundamentalists, but perhaps government should be kept out of such foreign religious practices and admit a zero tolerance approach is not sensible.

Right. Let me tell you what's not sensible: a world where religious activities are exempt from law where similar secular activities (medical marijuana, anyone?) are not. I wonder whether Neil likes John Roberts, still.

© Copyright 1995-2009 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

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