US Presidential signing statements and the constitution

[S.A.M.]

First, what is a "noncombatant" in your view? And, second, how do you know that they are "noncombatant"? Did you hold a trial or something? Or just believe the propaganda?

And your "torture" comment is so silly that I refuse to respond to it.

Baron Max

No one held a trial. So they are noncombatants because there is no charge against them and they are all civilians.

So what are they covered by? Rule of Law? Geneva convention? Under what rule is the US torturing them?

And is it okay to say that any American civilian suspected of being involved with funding/training militants can be treated the same way since the US has done it?

 

[Baron Max]

No one held a trial. So they are noncombatants because there is no charge against them and they are all civilians.

They're POWs, SAM. Read up on the Geneva Convention.

Under what rule is the US torturing them?

Can you prove that assertion? Or is it just more of your propaganda?

And is it okay to say that any American civilian suspected of being involved with funding/training militants can be treated the same way since the US has done it?

Yes, as a matter of fact. But, get this SAM, but only if those holding the US citizens are a legitimate police/military of a legitimate, recognized government of another nation. Terrorists and insurgents and freedom fighters do NOT come under that umbrella of legality.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, as a matter of fact. But, get this SAM, but only if those holding the US citizens are a legitimate police/military of a legitimate, recognized government of another nation. Terrorists and insurgents and freedom fighters do NOT come under that umbrella of legality.

So a legitimate police or military can do all this to American citizens in secret and there is no accountability for it.

 

[Baron Max]

So a legitimate police or military can do all this to American citizens in secret and there is no accountability for it.

In secret? What's that supposed to mean?

If the US is, for example, fighting a war with Nation Z, and the troops of Nation Z capture American fighting men, then it's a POW situation. The prisoners are supposed to be treated in accordance with GC rules.

However, if Nation Z comes into the USA and kidnaps a US citizen, then that would NOT be acceptable by the Geneva Convention or any other acceptable rules or laws.

Baron Max

 

[swarm]

If they are POWs why are they not being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention?

 

[Baron Max]

If they are POWs why are they not being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention?

If you think that they aren't being treated in accordance with the GC, then you should report your evidence to the UN or to other proper authorities. And citing some biased website's bullshit is NOT evidence!

If you don't have proper and legal evidence, then you're just making foolish accusations and furthering extremist propaganda.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

In secret? What's that supposed to mean?

The Red Cross is not allowed to talk to the prisoners without a US trooper present.

 

[John99]

The Red Cross is not allowed to talk to the prisoners without a US trooper present.

No, it would be 'in secret' if they were not there.

 

[Baron Max]

The Red Cross is not allowed to talk to the prisoners without a US trooper present.

Red Cross and other such mamby-pamby folks are always being attack and killed and kidnapped by such mean-spirited people! Why should the guards not protect the visitors?

Hey, SAM, what would you blame on the USA if one of those Red Cross volunteers was killed in the Gitmo cell of one of those Muslim extremists????

Baron Max

 

[iceaura]

Oh, and that 'habea corpus' thingie was suspended by Lincoln during the Civil War

He was quickly overruled by the Supreme Court.

They're POWs, SAM. Read up on the Geneva Convention.

They have been refused POW status by W's administration, to justify violating the Geneva Convention on treatment of POWs.

I agree that the determination of status was itself a Geneva violation, but the President can do what he can get away with.

Which answers SAM's questions, pretty much. The President of the US has access to powerful means, and the task of curbing his ambitions has been recognized as a difficult one since the founding of the country. The system of "checks and balances" designed for that purpose has been stretched and challenged in the past, and currently seems to be facing its greatest challenge in recent history.

W has violated several important provisions of the Constitution including most of the Bill of Rights, and has not been held to account. What that means for the new administration, and the future of the US as a governed country, remains to be seen.

 

[S.A.M.]

Thanks, ice. It was interesting to hear Laurence Tribe speak. He was full of praise for the best research assistant he ever had. *cough cough*

 

[Baron Max]

He was quickly overruled by the Supreme Court.

What's your idea of "quickly"? As I understand it, habeus corpus was suspended for quite some time ...years.

I agree that the determination of status was itself a Geneva violation, but the President can do what he can get away with.

What law did he violate?

The system of "checks and balances" designed for that purpose has been stretched and challenged in the past, and currently seems to be facing its greatest challenge in recent history.

What law did he violate?

W has violated several important provisions of the Constitution including most of the Bill of Rights, and has not been held to account.

What law did he violate?

Baron Max

 

[iceaura]

He was quickly overruled by the Supreme Court.
”
What's your idea of "quickly"? As I understand it, habeus corpus was suspended for quite some time ...years.

Lincoln's order was invalidated in the Maryland Circuit Court within a couple of months. Lincoln simply defied the Court for a while, with Congressional support of course, and then (a year or so later) Congress suspended habeas corpus by law rather than Presidential edict.

That lasted until after the war, another two years.

W's suspension of habeas corpus by edict lasted longer than Lincoln's and the Civil War Congress's put together, showing a greater loss of check or balance than was evident during the Civil War, when the whole country was in chaos. The current vague status of it under the Patriot Act etc is an interesting and dangerous situation.

What law did he violate? {several times}

The US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, and the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of captured enemy during conflicts (which are US law, as signatory to them).

Thanks, ice. It was interesting to hear Laurence Tribe speak.

? Connection?

 

[S.A.M.]

Thanks, ice. It was interesting to hear Laurence Tribe speak.

”

? Connection?

The O.P.?

 

[Baron Max]

The US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, and the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of captured enemy during conflicts (which are US law, as signatory to them).

I think you need to be a little more specific than that. And if what you say is actually true, then why was/is nothing being done about it? There are/were no lawsuits, no impeachment hearings, no ...ahh, no nothing except a lot of bluster and bluff. Which seems to be what you're doing here ....bluster and bluff.

Again, what law(s) were violated?

Baron Max

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Dear, S.A.M.

I wrote you this letter to give you a better idea of America.
America is a screwed up country, over run by very confused people. Most Americans ignore the problems of thier country because they actully have to live in this country. turning their head and deniing the screw ups lets them face another day.
You see americans can not just run away, this country is all they know. it it abuses them they just try and forget it.

If you read the Declaration of Independence the words of the founding father Thomas Jefferson will tell you why they are that way.

Good luck in trying to understand America.

Sincerly yours
DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

[S.A.M.]

Thank you DwayneD.L.Rabon

I appreciate your efforts.

 

[swarm]

If you think that they aren't being treated in accordance with the GC, then you should report your evidence to the UN or to other proper authorities. And citing some biased website's bullshit is NOT evidence!

If you don't have proper and legal evidence, then you're just making foolish accusations and furthering extremist propaganda.

Baron Max

Torture is against the GC and we specifically tried Japanese soldiers for water boarding US soldiers as a violation of the GC.

 

[joepistole]

This is a link to The Declaration of Independence:

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

 

[Baron Max]

Torture is against the GC and we specifically tried Japanese soldiers for water boarding US soldiers as a violation of the GC.

Well, golly gee. Okay, now what evidence do you have of torture happening today? And, please, not just wild accusations, but valid, legal evidence.

Baron Max