> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 3:09 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: VP not part of Executive Branch? > > > On 17/07/2007, at 6:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > >> > >> When has an American Citizen been held as an enemy combatant and > >> completely isolated? > > > > I'm not sure that exact thing has happened, but I know that in WWII > > Americans citizens, captured in the US have been declared enemy > > combatants > > and executed. The Supreme Court decided at the time that > > constitutional > > protections did not apply to them. > > ...which was before the Geneva Conventions...
People embarking on sabotage while pretending to be civilians are not afforded protection under the Geneva Convention (see section 4.1.2 of GCIII). Now, it might be possible for the eight caught, tried and convicted to claim that they deserved protection as members of the German military....even though they dressed as civilians. As far as I can tell, if this argument were accepted, the death sentence would be delayed by, at most, 6 months....because perfidy is a war crime...which can be punished by death. The purpose of the Geneva conventions was to protect non-combat, and uniformed combatants who surrendered or otherwise hours de combat....not fighters who pretend to be civilians in order to commit acts of war. > > This is also the main precedent for > > Bush's actions. > > ...who has unilaterally withdrawn from the Geneva Conventions, then? No, and he didn't half to. In this particular case, there is absolutely no protection under the Geneva Convention, just as there is no protection for Americans falsely accused of crime in a foreign country. Padilla's protection needs to come from the US Constitution. And, unfortunately, the bad Supreme Court decision during WWII that I referenced has provided precedent for Bush's actions. I'm not condoning Bush's actions. I think they are wrong. Let me try to put it this way. The decision by the Stone court during WWII put a hole in the Constitutional protection afforded American citizens. Since the Supreme Court decided that an American could be stripped by the President of his Bill of Rights protection if he is an enemy combatant, then that's the law...until the Supreme Court changes the law. It's worth noting that the petition of habeas corpus for Padilla did not question the right of a president to take this action. A similar hole existed when the Supreme Court decided during WWII that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional. That hole had been subsequently fixed when a case came before the Court and they reversed this decision. This decision needs to be reversed. There has not been a case to try, so the Court didn't reverse it. It is reasonable to fault this Supreme Court for not pulling the case out of the appeals process (a very unusual move but technically possible) to decide on it. But, I don't see how one can fault the lowest levels of the court system, who are suppose to follow the law, even when they think its wrong. As one goes up the appeals process, higher courts are more willing to strike new legal ground...as they should be. The enemy combatant status was removed during the process because an appeals court did find fault with Bush's actions and Bush thought there was a significant risk that the Supreme Court would uphold this decision and overturn the Stone court decision. So, the case is now in the process of being tried in a civilian court. What I find troubling is that countering hyperbola is considered support of indefensible actions. It's quite possible to have legal actions be wrong. There are bad Supreme Court decisions that provide precedent for actions. Lots of bad things are not prohibited by the Geneva Convention...including the massive genocide practiced by Mao (tens of millions killed). Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
