Thursday, September 21, 2006
Military Tribunes and the Geneva Convention as they are applied to terrorists.
Recent rulings by the Supreme Court have troubled me. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/
As a former soldier, I had been repeatedly trained in upholding the Geneva Conventions and one thing I clearly remember is that there are sets of rules that apply to civilians and rules that apply to soldiers. Civilians who engage in acts of war are considered spies or “unlawful combatants.”
The Geneva Convention was enacted to civilize an uncivil act; war. It was assumed that these rules would be applied to nations engaging other nations with armed and uniformed soldiers. Spies and other unlawful combatants are not covered under the GC as prisoners of war, because they do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” which is one of the conditions necessary to be covered for treatment as a POW in the GC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
Unlawful combatants are criminals of war, and criminals of war have previously been allowed to be subject to military tribunals. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1
In EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), there were German soldiers who came into Florida and New York via submarine, then ditched their uniforms in order to blend into society for the purpose of planting explosives. In this case, the court found military tribunals “constitutional” for
1. Violation of the law of war.
2. Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding with or giving intelligence to, the enemy.
3. Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying.
4. Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges 1, 2 and 3.
Do we see the comparisons? Today, we have in custody, non-uniformed unlawful combatants, often citizens from other countries, who have used explosives to attack local populations and military in addition to coalition forces.
Now I would like to think that the administration had this case in mind when it argued for the military tribunals, but I don’t know why the SC would have reversed its previous decision.
The fact that the Supreme Court is viewing non-combatants differently now in this war says to me that the GC has not been clearly understood by anyone. Why shouldn’t the Bush Administration ask for Congressional clarification of the inhumane treatment clauses of the Geneva Convention if the Supreme Court can’t understand what a non-uniformed combatant is?
Recent rulings by the Supreme Court have troubled me. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/
As a former soldier, I had been repeatedly trained in upholding the Geneva Conventions and one thing I clearly remember is that there are sets of rules that apply to civilians and rules that apply to soldiers. Civilians who engage in acts of war are considered spies or “unlawful combatants.”
The Geneva Convention was enacted to civilize an uncivil act; war. It was assumed that these rules would be applied to nations engaging other nations with armed and uniformed soldiers. Spies and other unlawful combatants are not covered under the GC as prisoners of war, because they do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” which is one of the conditions necessary to be covered for treatment as a POW in the GC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
Unlawful combatants are criminals of war, and criminals of war have previously been allowed to be subject to military tribunals. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1
In EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), there were German soldiers who came into Florida and New York via submarine, then ditched their uniforms in order to blend into society for the purpose of planting explosives. In this case, the court found military tribunals “constitutional” for
1. Violation of the law of war.
2. Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding with or giving intelligence to, the enemy.
3. Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying.
4. Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges 1, 2 and 3.
Do we see the comparisons? Today, we have in custody, non-uniformed unlawful combatants, often citizens from other countries, who have used explosives to attack local populations and military in addition to coalition forces.
Now I would like to think that the administration had this case in mind when it argued for the military tribunals, but I don’t know why the SC would have reversed its previous decision.
The fact that the Supreme Court is viewing non-combatants differently now in this war says to me that the GC has not been clearly understood by anyone. Why shouldn’t the Bush Administration ask for Congressional clarification of the inhumane treatment clauses of the Geneva Convention if the Supreme Court can’t understand what a non-uniformed combatant is?
# posted by Bonded @ 9:11 AM 
