Comments on: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/ All that flavorful brownness in one savory packet Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:11:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Xomix http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/comment-page-1/#comment-110090 Xomix Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:30:49 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3209#comment-110090 <p>Most of the combatants captured in Afghanistan were Taliban, not Al-queda. Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban was the official government and army of the sovereign state of Afghanistan, which would make those combatants subject to Geneva Convention protections.</p> Most of the combatants captured in Afghanistan were Taliban, not Al-queda. Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban was the official government and army of the sovereign state of Afghanistan, which would make those combatants subject to Geneva Convention protections.

]]> By: vikram http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/comment-page-1/#comment-52594 vikram Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:10:56 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3209#comment-52594 <p>Right, a police state that lets you challenge its views of the law before multiple courts. Sounds like Nazi Germany to me. And no one seems to get this point: They are actors in an organization conducting warfare againt the US. I never said the state should be able to mess with whomever it wants. If you read clearly, I said the state has no authority when it comes to people defined by the constitution or the geneva conventions. Al-Queada does not fit either description. Therefore the government can establish new rules for them, and in this case they are severe as they should be.</p> Right, a police state that lets you challenge its views of the law before multiple courts. Sounds like Nazi Germany to me. And no one seems to get this point: They are actors in an organization conducting warfare againt the US. I never said the state should be able to mess with whomever it wants. If you read clearly, I said the state has no authority when it comes to people defined by the constitution or the geneva conventions. Al-Queada does not fit either description. Therefore the government can establish new rules for them, and in this case they are severe as they should be.

]]> By: Madurai Vivekan http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/comment-page-1/#comment-52525 Madurai Vivekan Thu, 30 Mar 2006 06:24:43 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3209#comment-52525 <p>howdy vikram,</p> <p>From this comment and other comments you've posted, your attitude towards the law seems to be that the state should be able to mess with whomever it wants as long as there isn't a law preventing it.</p> <p>(#9):</p> <blockquote>What law, and we are looking for one, says they should be given such protection?</blockquote> <p>What law which has stood up in court (and I am looking for one) says that they shouldn't be given such protection, and instead should be locked up indefinitely without being charged? The intent behind the Constitution was to provide for a broad set of rights upon which the state could not easily infringe - not the other way around. Your attitude towards the law puts us squarely on the path to becoming a police state.</p> howdy vikram,

From this comment and other comments you’ve posted, your attitude towards the law seems to be that the state should be able to mess with whomever it wants as long as there isn’t a law preventing it.

(#9):

What law, and we are looking for one, says they should be given such protection?

What law which has stood up in court (and I am looking for one) says that they shouldn’t be given such protection, and instead should be locked up indefinitely without being charged? The intent behind the Constitution was to provide for a broad set of rights upon which the state could not easily infringe – not the other way around. Your attitude towards the law puts us squarely on the path to becoming a police state.

]]> By: vikram http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/comment-page-1/#comment-52520 vikram Thu, 30 Mar 2006 05:08:10 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3209#comment-52520 <p>The only people who have guaranteed access to civilian courts by the constitution are those here in the US. That's why Jose Padilla should have been transferred immeadietly to civilian criminal court. Al-Queda is conducting warfare and is not a signatory to Genevea protections. What law, and we are looking for one, says they should be given such protection? And sluggo, your self-righeousness doesn't translate into intelligence. When Al-Queda decides to cease attacking civilians and wage war on military targets alone they may have a case to have Geneva protection. However, there is no rule that says a terrorist must be tried in either a civilian court or be given Geneva protections. Let me put it to in another way: if American soldiers are captured by Zarquaqi, what is most likely outcome? And if you have the gall to say their eventual beheading is a REACTION to our policies, you are as deluded as you are dumb.</p> The only people who have guaranteed access to civilian courts by the constitution are those here in the US. That’s why Jose Padilla should have been transferred immeadietly to civilian criminal court. Al-Queda is conducting warfare and is not a signatory to Genevea protections. What law, and we are looking for one, says they should be given such protection? And sluggo, your self-righeousness doesn’t translate into intelligence. When Al-Queda decides to cease attacking civilians and wage war on military targets alone they may have a case to have Geneva protection. However, there is no rule that says a terrorist must be tried in either a civilian court or be given Geneva protections. Let me put it to in another way: if American soldiers are captured by Zarquaqi, what is most likely outcome? And if you have the gall to say their eventual beheading is a REACTION to our policies, you are as deluded as you are dumb.

]]> By: Sluggo http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/comment-page-1/#comment-52491 Sluggo Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:09:52 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3209#comment-52491 <blockquote> Members of al-queda are 1)not signatory to the geneva conventions 2)not a free standing army in a sense and 3) not an army that limits its attacks to military installations. Under what circumstances are they to be given these rights? </blockquote> <p>Damn right! Why should we be civilized when others aren't!!?!! Just because we believe in laws, rights, and such shouldn't mean that others deserve it; We got the torture down and killing more than 30,000 civilians; it's time their human rights were completely taken away...</p> Members of al-queda are 1)not signatory to the geneva conventions 2)not a free standing army in a sense and 3) not an army that limits its attacks to military installations. Under what circumstances are they to be given these rights?

Damn right! Why should we be civilized when others aren’t!!?!! Just because we believe in laws, rights, and such shouldn’t mean that others deserve it; We got the torture down and killing more than 30,000 civilians; it’s time their human rights were completely taken away…

]]> By: Kaveri http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/comment-page-1/#comment-52463 Kaveri Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:00:08 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3209#comment-52463 <p>I'm not an attorney, but it strikes me as common sense that the Hamdan case should either be tried as a civilian criminal case, or adherent to the Unified Military Code of Justice. If al-Qaeda is not a signatory of the Geneva War Convention, and not a free standing army, then captured members should be indicted and given their day in court, and not be suspended of habeas corpus. It's mindboggling to see the Bush administration designate captured members with the emergent title of enemy combatant, and then suspend all due process, both civilian and military jurisprudence. If it is a war, and enemy members are captured, as a signatory the United States is compelled to observe the Geneva War Convention. If it is not a war, then the captured members should be tried in a civilian court. They can't conveniently cherry-pick portions of the law that facilitates their agenda.</p> I’m not an attorney, but it strikes me as common sense that the Hamdan case should either be tried as a civilian criminal case, or adherent to the Unified Military Code of Justice. If al-Qaeda is not a signatory of the Geneva War Convention, and not a free standing army, then captured members should be indicted and given their day in court, and not be suspended of habeas corpus. It’s mindboggling to see the Bush administration designate captured members with the emergent title of enemy combatant, and then suspend all due process, both civilian and military jurisprudence. If it is a war, and enemy members are captured, as a signatory the United States is compelled to observe the Geneva War Convention. If it is not a war, then the captured members should be tried in a civilian court. They can’t conveniently cherry-pick portions of the law that facilitates their agenda.

]]> By: vikram http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/comment-page-1/#comment-52452 vikram Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:05:17 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3209#comment-52452 <p>Members of al-queda are 1)not signatory to the geneva conventions 2)not a free standing army in a sense and 3) not an army that limits its attacks to military installations. Under what circumstances are they to be given these rights?</p> Members of al-queda are 1)not signatory to the geneva conventions 2)not a free standing army in a sense and 3) not an army that limits its attacks to military installations. Under what circumstances are they to be given these rights?

]]> By: Dave http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/comment-page-1/#comment-52420 Dave Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:51:27 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3209#comment-52420 <p>The audio of the oral argument is available in mp3 format <a href="http://www.law.georgetown.edu/webcast/eventDetail.cfm?eventID=114">here</a>.</p> The audio of the oral argument is available in mp3 format here.

]]> By: Dave http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/comment-page-1/#comment-52347 Dave Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:46:53 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3209#comment-52347 <p><b>Rage</b>, Justice Scalia did participate in today's hearings and, according to one analysis of the arguments, Justice Scalia "provid[ed] the <i>only</i> clearcut signs of unstinting support for the federal government's arguments." This suggests that Professor Katyal performed extremely well today:</p> <blockquote>The overall tone of the hearings seemed <i>significantly in favor of the challenge </i>to the new tribunals. [I]t appeared that Justice Anthony M. Kenney might well emerge as holding the decisive vote. At one point, he suggested openly to the detainees' lawyer, Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal, that the Court might well "think there is merit" in his argument that the tribunals were not "properly constituted." [<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/03/analysis_hard_d.html">Link</a>]</blockquote> Rage, Justice Scalia did participate in today’s hearings and, according to one analysis of the arguments, Justice Scalia “provid[ed] the only clearcut signs of unstinting support for the federal government’s arguments.” This suggests that Professor Katyal performed extremely well today:

The overall tone of the hearings seemed significantly in favor of the challenge to the new tribunals. [I]t appeared that Justice Anthony M. Kenney might well emerge as holding the decisive vote. At one point, he suggested openly to the detainees’ lawyer, Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal, that the Court might well “think there is merit” in his argument that the tribunals were not “properly constituted.” [Link]
]]> By: Rage http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/03/28/hamdan_v_rumsfe/comment-page-1/#comment-52340 Rage Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:12:26 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3209#comment-52340 <p>Thanks for this Dave.</p> <p>Any news on whether Scalia actually <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/26/guantanamo.scalia.reut/index.html>recused</a> himself?</p> Thanks for this Dave.

Any news on whether Scalia actually