|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject: W. Bush Follows Supreme Court Ruling... |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| The Bush administration says that detainees in U.S. military custody are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. The White House had previously hoped to try detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in military tribunals. |
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5549656
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration, called to account by Congress after the Supreme Court blocked military tribunals, said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush... |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/congress.guantanamo.ap/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| About bloody time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A step back to the moral high ground. Well done, and keep it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, it was Bush's decision to abide by a court ruling. Whoopy-doo.
Credit goes to the Supreme Court.
I just wonder if charges can be filed against the U.S. government for the more than 3 years that many have been detained without due process.
I doubt if anyone here would think that the detainees should not have been detained, however they should be accorded rights and protections under the Geneva Conventions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This really is a heartening change.....good for them.......  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Call me a cynic, but this is nothing more than political CYA. Glad to see it as it's the right thing, but I wish that were why it was being done. Anyone who thinks this is anything other than a November-related move is either blind or a fool or both.
I guarantee you we will be seeing statements in the coming months about how much Dumbya and the Republicans love the constitution, and, gosh, just look at Guantanamo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Geneva Conventions to be applied on the battlefield as well
| Quote: |
As a result, some lawyers with expertise in military affairs said, they believe military leaders would be reassured by a clarification of prisoners' rights in part because it is a reversion to U.S. military tradition. "I think commanders in the field will see it positively -- they see the value of complying with the law of war," said Col. David Wallace, a West Point law professor. "It's not seen as an impediment to mission performance."
"I think it will be welcomed," agreed Tom Malinowski, the Washington director for Human Rights Watch. "It provides greater clarity and returns the military to a standard every soldier, sailor and Marine trains on." |
I think Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, et al should be congratulated for their good and professional dissidence. Also, as an American, I am very proud of this day. The system has carried through, and the Executive Branch, an aggressive administration even, is submitting to the dictates of the Supreme Court that they must comply with the law. I think, in a way, many in the military welcome this change, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I want to throw a big wind of caution into this.
Bush has for atleast the last 4 years consistently filed "signing statements" to all legislation and laws. This gives him overiding authority and they state he may interpret and execute all laws according to HIS authority. Essentially an override to all legislation. Elected officials are not informed of this and there is no verbal statement. They are merely filed away into the Federal Register, the compendium of U.S. law.
So he has been defacto, hijacking the constitutional process and the working of DEMOCRACY. He has claimed in his signing statements, the right to unilaterly ignore more than 750 laws since he became president.
Bush's (more to the point Cheney's) view of the government is that the presidency has "inherent" power to govern and two, unitary executive authority -- final oversight. He essentially throws U.S. history in the garbage bin and makes the U.S. a fiefdom of his whims. Overuling Marbury vs Madison (1803) which established the principle of judicial overview and checks and balances.
Tyrant. Do not get me started. This latest salvo of "I will obey Congress etc......" is just cosmetic. He is smirking.....Do not get me started....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This change has ramifications that go beyond the narrow issue of military prisoners ruled on by the Supreme Court, and I am glad that we are beginning to see an across-the-board policy clarification...
| Quote: |
Lawyers both in and outside the Bush administration are debating how prisoners held by the CIA may be affected by this week's policy shift on detainees.
The White House conceded Tuesday that the Geneva Conventions do apply to terror suspects in U.S. custody. Those conventions guarantee the right to basic human and legal protections.
The key document involved is a Pentagon memo written by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and made public Tuesday. It states that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions "applies as a matter of law to the conflict with al-Qaida. "
But confusion persists over what that will mean for prisoners held by intelligence agencies, as opposed to those held by the military in places such as the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The White House has said very little on the subject. When the policy shift was first announced, reporters were told that the change would not apply to CIA detainees.
But on Wednesday, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius suggested that the new policy probably will apply to those held by the CIA. He referred to an executive order President Bush issued in 2002 that said terror suspects were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Lisaius said that across the U.S. government, that executive order no longer applies.
That suggests the Bush administration has decided to afford basic rights to the several dozen high-level al-Qaida suspects presumed to be in CIA custody. If so, it would signal a radical rethinking of how the administration plans to deal with such prisoners going forward.
Among those who would be affected are Abu Zubaydah, a key al-Qaida lieutenant captured in Pakistan in March 2002, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom the 9/11 Commission Report called the "principal architect" of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003. The CIA has never admitted it is holding anyone.
If the Geneva Conventions do indeed apply to these suspects, at a minimum, the U.S. government would be required to report who it is holding, according to former lawyers at the CIA and National Security Agency contacted by NPR. The U.S. government would also need to make some progress in deciding whether to pursue prosecutions against them.
How such prosecutions would proceed is still unclear. Suspects like Zubaydah and Mohammed are believed to have been interrogated using aggressive techniques, which would make the evidence obtained inadmissible in a federal court. But CIA lawyers would have to devise some sort of due process.
Legal experts say detainees would at least be entitled to meet with a CIA or military lawyer with security clearance. Those lawyers would be able to establish if the right person is in custody -- given that identity mistakes have been made with terrorism suspects detained since the Sept. 11 attacks. |
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5552575
| Quote: |
Several suspected al-Qaida operatives accused of having ties to the Sept. 11 attacks are believed to be held at undisclosed locations overseas. Among them:
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed: The 9/11 Commission Report calls Mohammed the "principal architect" of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He was captured in Pakistan in March 2003.
In February 2006, President Bush announced details of a plot that Mohammed had allegedly set in motion by October 2001 to fly an airplane into the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles. Law-enforcement officials believe Mohammed also had a hand in the Bali nightclub bombings of October 2002, which killed more than 200 people, and in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
Several media outlets have reported that the CIA has used a technique known as "waterboarding" -- which involves simulating drowning -- on Mohammed during interrogations. Testimony obtained from Mohammed was used in the Moussaoui trial.
Ramzi Binalshibh: Binalshibh is believed to have been the chief coordinator between al-Qaida and the Sept. 11 hijackers, and a member of the so-called "Hamburg cell" of conspirators. Binalshibh shared an apartment in Hamburg with Mohammed Atta, the suspected ringleader of the hijackers.
A Yemeni, Binalshibh was captured in Pakistan on Sept. 11, 2002 -- exactly one year after the attacks. Testimony obtained from Binalshibh was used in the German trial of Mounir El Motassadek -- the first person convicted in connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Motassadek was convicted in August 2005 of belonging to a terrorist group and sentenced to seven years in prison.
Abu Zubaydah: A key al-Qaida lieutenant, Zubaydah was No. 3 on the United States' most-wanted list when he was captured in a safehouse in Pakistan in March 2002.
Zubaydah joined al-Qaida sometime in the 1990s, befriending Osama bin Laden and rising quickly up the ranks. The Saudi-born Palestinian was the terrorist organization's chief recruiter, helping to arrange training for new members. A Jordanian court sentenced Zubaydah to death in absentia for his role in a foiled plot to bomb hotels during celebrations of the millennium.
Abu Farraj al-Libbi: -- Al-Libbi was captured in May 2005 following a gunbattle in Pakistan's northwest frontier region. After the arrest of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al-Libbi is believed to have stepped in as head of operations for al-Qaida. Al-Libbi is suspected of planning at least two assassination attempts against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. |
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5384219 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mere window dressing ...
Ironically, yet not too surprisingly, under this new "ruling", detainees are now likely
to be held EVEN LONGER ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incommunicado |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
What America did was wrong, holding people without trials. It's saying they aren't human.
But I think you are wrong here (well, maybe right, but it doesn't matter). They were fighting in Afghanistan and they most likely were Taliban. If they are terrorists, they should be tried and sentenced. When this happens, I am pretty sure the judge will hold all this time in limbo against their sentences (I hope atleast, plus most judges probably would). If they were held illegally, well I think they should be given recompense (though I don't see that happening). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
As my previous post stated, there is no reason to relax..............with his use of signing statements, there is NO WAY to really know what programs have been set up, what secret interpretations and organizations have been set up to do America's will.....
I would second the recent Constitution Project's call that America faces a constitutional crisis. http://www.constitutionproject.org/
It is scary. I'm right now listening to Bush speaking in Germany and saying nothing intelligent. Shameful, he can't even make a full sentence and he sounds like a terrible hick. He makes no sense......and now he is talking about "looking forward to that pig"....
America is being led down a wild and shadowy goose trail. I call on anyone to get concerned and apply pressure to get these "old boys" out of there, those that operate only on the arrogant assumption of "we will do what we want" and promote only those dogs loyal......
I'll quote Madison's federalist paper 47:
"The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many.......may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
PS>
I forgot to mention how ongoing is Bush's onslaught against the constitution and into tyranny. Forgot to mention about Bush's own nomination (good old boy reward) of William Haynes to sit on the federal bench, the 4th Circuit Court, a crucial court for deciding questions of civil liberty.
Haynes agrees with aggressive torturing of "subjects" and in my opinion has stained all of America with his promotion of policies in the military that are just plain against any notion of humanity.
Yeah, Bush is finally getting it. He is probably going to have a private celebratory dinner with Haynes when he returns from Germany. God hopes the Senate committee sends him out on his ass...
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
