Not only does the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 afford the US Court of Appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review habeas-corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees, but it goes on to say quite explicitly, “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider . . . an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba . . .”

And if you’d respond by saying something like, “Congress doesn’t have the right to institute such judicial restrictions,” well, then you’d be wrong. According to the Constitution (Article III, Section 2), Supreme Court jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

So arguing over whether or not the Court’s decision was the right one ignores the fact that it’s a decision that should never have been made in the first place.

Perhaps someone who knows a bit more about this sort of thing can tell me where I’ve got wrong . . . but at the moment, it all seems pretty explicit and clear.

It’s very easy to see who was outclassed here, and it certainly wasn’t Old Soldier! Way to go, Old Soldier. You are absolutely right.

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Paraphrased for the sake of our topic: A High Contracting Party is prohibited (in section 1) from passing judgement on those people detained by one of said High Contracting in a conflict occurring in the territory of a High Contracting Party if the judgment is passed in a court that is not regularly constituted. Other prohibitions in this Clear as day. The High Contracting Parties are bound to treat anyone detained (in addition to others), not simply those of the parties nation/military, according to the rules laid out in this section. That includes section d, which deals exclusively with the passing of judgment.

In regards to the specific issue that started this discussion – the constitution and the Accords of the Geneva Convention, I suggest you read this commentary by Mark Steyn. He presents some powerful arguments in regard to who the Accords apply to.

How activist of you, ignoring the original words and intent of the Geneva Convention, which we have established is US law. I’ll take the actual language of the treaty over Mark Steyn’s arguments every moment of my life. I’d suggest you do the same.

Interestingly, when the Muslims overran a city, the citizens were given the choice to convert to Islam, accept dhimmi status or die. When Christians retook cities, they allowed the Muslims to remain as Muslims provided they agreed to remain peaceful.

I will not accept this assertion without evidence. I do not doubt that this occurred at times, but I reject the notion that it was not an exception to the regular. I frankly do not believe this is true because Muslim governments typically enriched themselves on jizya taxes exacted upon Christians and Jews residing in Muslim areas.

The methodology you are using to back your position on Islam with verses from the Quran is known as prooftexting. Its not a sound form of argument. The same thing can be done with Christian scripture to make the argument that the Christian God encourages his followers to slay enemies, destroy their property, etc. If you really cannot see this, let me know and I’ll pull plenty of verses from the Bible for you to see clearly. I assume this is unnecessary however because you’re likely familiar enough with the Bible (especially many Old Testament sections) to know how prevalent singular verses (or multiple ones taken out of context) like this are.

For you to offer any kind of a defense for these radicals in general or specific is unconscionable.

I am not defending radical Muslims. I oppose them as I oppose violent Christian fundamentalists. Once again, you misrepresent my position. I haven’t said a word in defense of radical Muslims in any of these comments, and for you to insinuate this is, once again, dishonest.

Do you believe the group out of Arkansas claiming to be Baptist Christians who demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers killed in action, claiming the soldiers’ death is because God is judging the US in regards to our acceptance of gay people, have a Biblical justification for acting in such a way?

Build that straw man up, then knock him down.

And I am appalled at the deafening silence of the “peaceful” Muslims when it comes to condemning the acts of the rogue (?) radicals of their religion.

So its “common Iraqis speaking out loudly and taking a stand against terrorists in their country” when they reject boycotts suggested by insurgents, but its deafening silence now?

Forrest, I am probably close to three times your age. Do you have any idea how arrogant and elitist your comment about me “earning” your respect comes off?

You had my respect until you repeatedly misrepresented my position, ignored the reality of Article VI of the US Constitution, ignored valid points I have explained and honest questions I have asked of you, and began to demand respect from me while denying respect for me due to your disagreement with me. Respect entails you do not misrepresent your opponent’s position and the reality of the issues you are debating. In short, you had my respect, but you’ve nearly lost it completely now, and there is little unreasonable about that.

Bin Laden’s blaming the 9-11 attacks and all of his directed aggression since 1990 on the US is purely misdirection. The US military was there first to save Saudi Arabia’s bacon from Saddam, and then to enforce the UN resolutions pertaining to the no-fly zones imposed on Saddam (after the first Gulf War). We were not forces occupying Mecca or Medina and we certainly were not slaughtering Muslims. If bin Laden had a problem (with the US presence in SA) his rightful target of displeasure was the Saudi government, not the people working in the World Trade Center. I cannot believe the logic to your argument would include justifying bin Laden’s actions.

Islam in general: there were two sides to the Crusades. If you believe the Crusades were unprovoked acts of aggression by Christians visited upon innocent Muslims, then you are accepting only one side of history. Deeper research should reveal that the Muslims had militaristically taken cities and towns that had been predominately Christian and some Jew (the advancement of Islam by the sword). The Crusades were launched to evict the invaders and reclaim the cities, towns, etc. That went back and forth for a couple hundred years. Interestingly, when the Muslims overran a city, the citizens were given the choice to convert to Islam, accept dhimmi status or die. When Christians retook cities, they allowed the Muslims to remain as Muslims provided they agreed to remain peaceful. A stark contrast, wouldn’t you say?

While studying Islam you might want to include the Hadith and probably spend a little more time understanding the following verses of the Qur’an.

2:19, “And slay them wherever ye catch them.”
4:84, “Then fight in Allah’s cause.”
4:141, “And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.”
5:33, “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
8:12, “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
8:17, “It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah.”
8:60, “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”
8:65, “O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers.”
9:5, “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.”
9:14, “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,…”
9:28-29, “O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
9:39, “Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.”
9:73, “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge indeed.”
9:111, “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an.”
9:123, “O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.”
22:9, “(Disdainfully) bending his side, in order to lead (men) astray from the Path of Allah: for him there is disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Judgment We shall make him taste the Penalty of burning (Fire).”
22:19-22, “These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away there from, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), “Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!”
25:52, “So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavor.”
25:69, “Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy.”
37:22-23, “Bring ye up”, it shall be said, “The wrong-doers and their wives, and the things they worshipped- Besides Allah, and lead them to the Way to the (Fierce) Fire!”
47:4, “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”
48:13, “And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!”
48:29, “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”
69:30-37, (The stern command will say): “Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin.”

I have no problem with Islam or Muslims in general. I have a significant problem with the radical faction that wants to place the world under an Islamic Caliphate rule imposing sharia. These are the people who wage war against us and these are the people that believe Infidels are not human, that there is no divine punishment related to anything they do to us (torture, killing, etc.). For you to offer any kind of a defense for these radicals in general or specific is unconscionable. Do you believe the group out of Arkansas claiming to be Baptist Christians who demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers killed in action, claiming the soldiers’ death is because God is judging the US in regards to our acceptance of gay people, have a Biblical justification for acting in such a way? I certainly do not. And I am appalled at the deafening silence of the “peaceful” Muslims when it comes to condemning the acts of the rogue (?) radicals of their religion.

Here is a reference you might find interesting regarding Muslim violence. After seriously reviewing the reference to more than 5,000 acts of radical Islamic terrorism since 9-11, perhaps you should re-evaluate your tendency to be an Islamic apologist.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Now on to the Constitution… a couple references, first.

Article I. Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Article II, Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

Article III. Section. 2. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Several times you have commented regarding the “rule of law” and I have indicated you have a romantic notion toward the “rule of law”. Sharia is law which rules Muslims, do you believe it should be applied within the US? The question is absurd, but makes a point; not all law is good. When our SCOTUS justices legislate from the bench they usurp the people’s representation afforded them by the constitution. The justice’s job is to interpret law; it is Congress’s job to enact laws, etc., etc. I believe in law that is founded upon or based in our constitution, contains common sense (the reasonable man application) – not international law. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg have favored referring to international law to decide matters before the SCOTUS. In regards to our sovereignty I consider this close to heresy.

To boil all of that down, yes, I believe in the rule of law that is properly legislated and properly interpreted. When the SCOTUS renders a bad ruling, what is the people’s recourse? The justices are not deities that sit the bench; truth of the matter is they are just as motivated by ideology as you and I. So when a 5-4 ruling is ideologically based, what is our recourse? Nothing, you say? Read Article III, Section 2 again. Congress can intervene; however, right now the ideological leaning of the SCOTUS is suited to the minority party, so regulating the bounds of the SCOTUS would be near impossible.

In regards to the specific issue that started this discussion – the constitution and the Accords of the Geneva Convention, I suggest you read this commentary by Mark Steyn. He presents some powerful arguments in regard to who the Accords apply to.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn02.html

(al-Qaeda and “terrorists” are not covered – something about “High Contracting Parties”.)

”…then perhaps you ought to consider moving elsewhere. (snip) This is exactly the type of dismissal I loathe from you. Treat me with some respect and you’ll earn some from me.”

Forrest, I am probably close to three times your age. Do you have any idea how arrogant and elitist your comment about me “earning” your respect comes off? I want you to do something for me… I want you to copy this comment stream (as it pertains to the “discussion” between you and me) and I want you to encapsulate it and ear mark it to be opened and reread July 4th, 2046. See if at that age you still feel the same way about earning the respect of a person 1/3 your age. This has nothing to do with our differences in how we view the topic of discussion. I have tired of your insolence and blatant disrespect; therefore, I am no longer inclined to carrying on a discussion with you. Unless you gain some civility and respect in the manner in which you address and respond to me, then you needn’t bother to reply to this comment, because I shall no longer respond to you.

Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in Oct of 2000, and he didn’t blame it on our presence in SA.

Bin Laden began listinglisting the American presence in Saudi Arabia as one of his chief grievances as early as 1990.

1990
The Saudi government allows U.S. troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which leads to the Persian Gulf War. Bin Laden is outraged by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, considered the cradle of Islam, and begins to write treatises against the Saudi regime

So, yes actually, he did attack the USS Cole due to the American presence in Saudi Arabia. He also mentioned this grievance verbatim in a 1997 interview, which of course was prior to the Cole attack.

In an interview bin Laden gave to CNN in 1997, he said the ongoing U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia is an “occupation of the land of the holy places.”

Believe it or not there are religions much older than Islam.

What is your point here? The age of a particular religion is irrelevant.

Are you aware I don’t really care how many cities in Iraq are considered holy by Muslims?

The issue here is that Islam is one of the three largest religions in the world. If you really think its wise to ignore the deeply held beliefs of people numbering anywhere from 700 million to 1.2 billion (estimates vary, here is a list of several such estimates), may God forbid that your advice ever reaches the ears of anyone who makes such decisions.

The rule of law is not romantic when it is meted out with common sense and within the confines of our constitution.

Do you read the same Constitution that I do? The one that which, in Article VI states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I wore my beloved country’s uniform for 31 years through 3 armed conflicts and many separations from my family, and you have the audacity to tell me I should move to China or Sudan?

If you really do not appreciate Article VI of the Constitution, then perhaps you ought to consider moving elsewhere. China and Sudan I used for hyperbole. However Article VI is the law at its most fundamental. You can’t have the Constitution piecemeal, taking what you like and ignoring what you do not.

No, the accords of the Convention are not American law. Our law requires us to honor our treaties. There is a subtle difference, but no matter, the accords basically exempt terrorist who do not qualify as enemy soldiers.

Once again, I point you to these words:

all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

That doesn’t isn’t the law saying we must honor them and thus creating a distinction between law and treaty; it is saying very clearly that treaties are law. There is no other way around that. The Geneva Convention is American law.

If all of this hostility in Islam directed against the West is predicated upon the US’s military presence in SA, then explain the Muslim violence that has been perpetuated for the last 1500 years.

Once again, you put words into my mouth. I never once stated that ALL of the hostility from Islam towards the West is caused by the (former) American presence in Saudi Arabia. If you really want to go back 1500 years, then I would advise that you do some research on this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. I do not mean to say that the West was the party responsible for instigating each of these hostilities, but certainly was culpable for a number of them. And all such conflicts obviously are related to the animosity that still exists today.

Our constitution has been decidedly ignored by the highest court in the land – yes, the SCOTUS.

What are you suggesting here? Abolishing the Supreme Court? Once again, that is a fundamental aspect of the American system of government, as per Article III of the Constitution.

And you wonder why you can’t have a civil discourse?

Putting words into my mouth repeatedly, dishonestly representing my positions, and brushing my view off as youthful ignorance are definitely not civil and will cause a similar response from me. Were I to work for an environment of civility, I would not mislead, misrepresent or blow off the person with whom I were discussing something.

This is your second blatantly insolent comment. One more and I will no longer respond to your comments.

I echo that with putting words into my mouth, intentionally misrepresenting reality (ie. the Constitution) and blowing me off. Deal? And you never answered the question. Please do. Do you really believe that you can erode some laws (in this case, Article VI of the Constitution itself) without eroding the entire system?

Do you agree that Kelo vs. New London was based upon an originalist interpretation of the constitution?

Where does the Constitution state that one must approach it from an originalist perspective? The beauty of the US is that we have an environment of open debate. Mandating specific positions was definitely not an intent of the founders, otherwise there would have been reason for speech protections in the First Amendment.

Now, out of honest curiosity, what is it that you are so attached to in the US? You do not appear to appreciate the Constitution in its entirety, nor the Supreme Court, nor the rule of law in its unadulterated form.

You have a few miles to travel before you have all the answers. Along the way it would behoove you to read some explorative material relative to Islam and their relationship to Infidels.

This is exactly the type of dismissal I loathe from you. Treat me with some respect and you’ll earn some from me. I possess two different versions of the Quran, have read much of it, and discussed it with people who have lived in the Middle East and Indonesia (which is very Muslim). Your views on the Quran are markedly different than those of most in the world. Why do you believe that is? Everyone I know that has lived in Muslim areas would vehemently disagree with you on the positions of Islam.

FYI, for a little background on myself, I am a Christian and have been my entire life. I attended a conservative, evangelical private Christian school for middle school and high school and a Presbyterian-affiliated university and graduated near the top of my class at both schools. I’m no “worldly, secular” heathen. I have friends (some of whom awere Christian theology majors) that lived in Muslim countries such as Lebanon and Indonesia, travelled for months recently in the Middle East (Palestine, Israel, Turkey, Egypt). I intensely discuss matters of theology, comparative religion, philosophy, ethics, morality and politics with these friends on a regular basis. I currently am a software developer, but do not believe this line of work will satisfy for me for long. I have been told I have an analytical gift and am strongly considering entering law school to make use of it. I do not claim to have all the answers, but nothing makes me as angry as being off-handedly dismissed in the way you have and always do. It not typical of me to describe myself like this, because I do not feel that this type of background information should be necessary to earn respect, but perhaps in this case it will help.

One more thing, I do appreciate your military service greatly, especially with the reminder of the upcoming holiday on Tuesday. I have a grandfather and step-grandfather (with whom I am especially close) who also both served (USAF and Navy). I am thankful for their service and hope to give them the respect they deserve for it. I have several friends who are now commissioned officers in the US Army via ROTC programs. I have another friend who recently returned from a tour in Iraq with Marine Corps. Military service, however, does not give one a blank check when it comes to debating other issues, and I would not give that to my family or friends or anyone else based simply on their service.

It may be good to take this discussion offline to email or some other forum if you really wish to continue it. But, if you prefer, I am open to continuing it here. Its your call.

When the court is informed of witnesses who can prove an inmate’s innocence they make little or no effort to find them, even when they’re easy to find:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1810329,00.html

Bush and Cheney continue to run rampant over all the safeguards our government has put in place by throwing up a “national secrets” smokescreen to cover their crimes. They lost all credibility when it became obvious they lied to get the Iraq invasion and put us in this situation.

I know what I’m talking about. I’m sorry you keep interpreting my disgust with Bush administration policies as disdain for people in uniform. Soldiers don’t set policy.

Yes, Forrest, I know why bin Laden began his jihad against the US. It’s called being a radical Islamic terrorist. Blaming the actions of 9-11 on our presence in Saudi Arabia is called propaganda, deception, misdirection, a ploy to draw empathy from sympathetic media (or in our case pathetic media). Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in Oct of 2000, and he didn’t blame it on our presence in SA. We were not occupiers of Mecca or Medina – our facilities weren’t even close to those cities. It’s pretty sad that you would readily accept the word of a man who’s religion tells him to lie, deceive, do whatever is required to destroy the Infidels. Radical Islamic terrorists are not noble people who can be taken at their word. Even if they give their word to an Infidel, the Qur’an and Hadith exonerate them from have to keep that word. So, mind telling me why we are supposed to believe anything OBL has to say? You’ve read his rantings, how many lies about events has he uttered in those ‘announcements”?

”Are you aware of how many holy sites of Islam exist in Iraq?”

Are you aware I don’t really care how many cities in Iraq are considered holy by Muslims? The majority of those cities were under Jewish or Christian leadership and governance long before Islam was born. Believe it or not there are religions much older than Islam.
”This is why I say we are on the road to creating more bin Ladens. Explain to me how that is an illogical conclusion, given that bin Laden began his attacks against the US because we had bases in Saudi Arabia, thus tainting the home of many Islamic holy sites, Iraq has a large number of holy sites, and permanent bases are being erected in Iraq.”
Remember the part about propaganda, deception, misdirection, a ploy to draw empathy from sympathetic media? If all of this hostility in Islam directed against the West is predicated upon the US’s military presence in SA, then explain the Muslim violence that has been perpetuated for the last 1500 years. Our actions are not what is generating more bin Ladens – Islamic imams and Wahabi schools are the generators; that coupled to the fact that we are Infidels and their goal is to establish Caliphates to rule the world via Sharia.
”So now the rule of law is a romantic notion?”
The rule of law is not romantic when it is meted out with common sense and within the confines of our constitution. Wanting peace by everyone just getting along is a romantic notion that is not based upon reality. Radical Islam will not be appeased, nor should we be tempted to travel down that road. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, appeasing radical Islam is the same as hoping the lion eats you last.
”You should move to China or Sudan then.”
Your arrogance and insolence is insulting. I wore my beloved country’s uniform for 31 years through 3 armed conflicts and many separations from my family, and you have the audacity to tell me I should move to China or Sudan? And you wonder why you can’t have a civil discourse?
”What I want is for American law to be followed. The Geneva Convention is American law.”
No, the accords of the Convention are not American law. Our law requires us to honor our treaties. There is a subtle difference, but no matter, the accords basically exempt terrorist who do not qualify as enemy soldiers. Do you really consider al-Qaeda to be a High Contracting Party to be honored by the Convention accords? Neither you nor I will be the deciding solicitors in this matter.
” Are you truly ignorant enough to believe that certain laws can be ignored without grave cost in other areas?”
This is your second blatantly insolent comment. One more and I will no longer respond to your comments. Our constitution has been decidedly ignored by the highest court in the land – yes, the SCOTUS. Do you agree that Kelo vs. New London was based upon an originalist interpretation of the constitution? How about Roe v Wade and the Fifth Amendment?
You have a few miles to travel before you have all the answers. Along the way it would behoove you to read some explorative material relative to Islam and their relationship to Infidels.