Why would he? He's actually got both law and tradition on his side. Prisoners of war have never had the same rights when captured as citizens of the country that captured them. Look at Vietnam POWs from just the last major war! Whether or not people AGREE with what Shrub is doing, it's hardly unprecedented. The issue of trials aside, though, the Geneva convention is the point that should get him. That's not a point of law so much as an international agreement that the U.S. was signatory to, and THAT is the agreement that he's breaking.
Because he's making a statement on an issue that is to come up before the court? That's called prejudging.
Besides, the president can name anyone in this country an enemy combatant. So, basically, the president can designate anyone he wants as someone with fewer rights than POWs (because at least POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention).
I thought he was making a statement about a PAST issue... maybe I misunderstood something.
That second point is the big problem. Actually more like two problems. First they ought to DEFINE who can and can't be declared an enemy combatant, in particular it should be only someone captured IN A HOSTILE ACT WITHIN A RECOGNIZED WAR ZONE. Of course, then they'd have to define war zone... oh, wait, Congress is supposed to decide who we go to war with, and then the war zone is where the army is fighting. Until we have active combat operations on U.S. soil, there should be NO "enemy combatants" here. Sure, they may capture a terrorist with a bomb, but he's not an enemy combatant; he's either a citizen an illegal alien and there are already mechanisms in place to deal with both. The second problem is that "enemy combatant" should be identically equal to "prisoner of war", and thus the Geneva convention automatically applies. Having a middle-ground sub-class just to get around a treaty we signed is stupid.
They were shooting at his son? In what fantasy world? Most of these people weren't combatants at all but have never been given a chance to prove that in any court.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 02:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 02:56 pm (UTC)Besides, the president can name anyone in this country an enemy combatant. So, basically, the president can designate anyone he wants as someone with fewer rights than POWs (because at least POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention).
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 03:09 pm (UTC)That second point is the big problem. Actually more like two problems. First they ought to DEFINE who can and can't be declared an enemy combatant, in particular it should be only someone captured IN A HOSTILE ACT WITHIN A RECOGNIZED WAR ZONE. Of course, then they'd have to define war zone... oh, wait, Congress is supposed to decide who we go to war with, and then the war zone is where the army is fighting. Until we have active combat operations on U.S. soil, there should be NO "enemy combatants" here. Sure, they may capture a terrorist with a bomb, but he's not an enemy combatant; he's either a citizen an illegal alien and there are already mechanisms in place to deal with both. The second problem is that "enemy combatant" should be identically equal to "prisoner of war", and thus the Geneva convention automatically applies. Having a middle-ground sub-class just to get around a treaty we signed is stupid.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 03:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 03:14 pm (UTC)Most of these people weren't combatants at all but have never been given a chance to prove that in any court.