McCain blasts Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling

[daihashi]

Sorry for the double post but I couldn't edit, waited too long. Now that I've found coffee I can articulate a bit

Your excerpt is true, the US signed and ratified all four of the original protocols.
Here is a link which provides info on that.

Geneva Conventions 1949 - United States of America reservation text

In reference to topic at hand, whether or not guantanomo prisoners should be subject to it, or prisoners from this war...whichever..
The parts you referred to in 1977 are commonly known as the additional protocols - the US did not ratify these.

They are:

I. Protection of victims in armed conflicts to situations where people are fighting in the exercise of their right of self determination against colonial domination, foreign occupation, or racist regimes.

II. Protection of victims of internal conflicts in which armed opposition controls enough territory to enable it to carry out sustained military operations.

Source for ^^: Geneva Conventions - MSN Encarta

So, the cases of Gunatanamo, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and pretty much every single colonial war are not applicable to the Geneva protocols.
By not ratifying these protocols, the US is essentially open to disregard protection of victims in armed conflicts surrounding colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes...Last I checked, Al Quaeda, and many fanatical groups are fighting because they don't like foreign invaders on their land, disrespecting their sovereignty. Just the same as Vietnam and Korea..
Therefore these "enemy combatants" are not even close to being afforded protection, because the protocol which would offer it to them is not ratified. Basically its a loophole, allowing them to be subject to torture, as we have seen.

Thanks for looking into that. I was not feeling good last night and couldn't clearly interpret it myself. It seems that you are correct in your interpretation, at least it makes sense to me but that doesn't mean that the court couldn't of ruled in favor of the Geneva convention instead of giving them American rights. It would be up to the choice of the Supreme Court. No one is actually stopping us from giving them rights under the Geneva Convention (aside from the Bush administration) and I feel the Supreme Court had the right idea but went in the wrong direction

Again thanks for clearing that up.. It's very hard for me to think when my entire body is firing off in pain.

[dragonrider]

Once again, out of 435,000 Germans in U.S. POW camps I can't find anything in regards to their due process in a U.S. court as to whether or not they should be held.

No, I'm sure that none of the German POWs of WWII had their day in a US court. Due process for a POW does not involve a trial. I think due process for a POW has more to do with their treatment, living conditions, protection from torture, and release at the end of hostilities.

Probably there is not any one-size-fits-all way to handle all of the detainees anyway. For those that were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq, it makes sense to me that they would be considered POWs. But then you have poeple like the German guy who was picked up in Pakistan for traveling to some religious schools. He was not on the battlefield and not carrying weapons --- turns out he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and had nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever. He gets sent to Afghanistan, tortured, sent to GITMO, tortured some more, and is finally released after 5 years when the German Chancellor finally made a personal request to Bush. A person like that is not a POW. He is someone captured in more of a police-type operation outside of the battlefield. He should have had his day in court. I'm sure there are more people who have been captured in that way who should not be processed as POWs. They may all be guilty, but they should be processed properly. This country is coming off like a bunch of hypocrits when we tell the rest of the world the RIGHT way to do things, and we don't even follow those rules ourselves.

I've got no idea what should be done with the people whose countries don't want them back. I haven't really heard much about that.

[FreshNugz]

This country is coming off like a bunch of hypocrits when we tell the rest of the world the RIGHT way to do things, and we don't even follow those rules ourselves.

Indeed. And the sooner more people realize this, the sooner it can change.:jointsmile:

[Dave Byrd]

AP: Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo - Yahoo! News

Reason number 1,0001 that validates the high court decision on Guantanamo and 10,001 why we're not held in high regard in the part of the world we're allegedly saving (or the rest of it). We cannot let this sort of thing go on or even be a rare occurrence. Not if we're pretending to be the arbiters of freedom and democracy.

Human rights and justice/due process. That's all it's about. The alternative is nothing more that idiocy and hypocrisy.

Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo

WASHINGTON - Medical examinations of former terrorism suspects held by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders, according to a human rights group.

For the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far, Physicians for Human Rights had doctors and mental health professionals examine 11 former prisoners. The group alleges finding evidence of U.S. torture and war crimes and accuses U.S. military health professionals of allowing the abuse of detainees, denying them medical care and providing confidential medical information to interrogators that they then exploited.

"Some of these men really are, several years later, very severely scarred," said Barry Rosenfeld, a psychology professor at Fordham University who conducted psychological tests on six of the 11 detainees covered by the study. "It's a testimony to how bad those conditions were and how personal the abuse was."

Continued: Refer to link for complete story
AP: Exams prove abuse, torture in Iraq, Gitmo - Yahoo! News

[rebgirl420]

I agree. I was infuriated with the ruling to give them the same Rights as American citizens. Even if these were not enemy combatants the fact of the matter remains that they are not Americans.

It's truely disgusting that we would attempt to give the same rights we get to enjoy to someone who attempted to harm our country.

whether you believe in Gitmo or not; you have to admit that giving terrorists or people that are not Americans the same rights that we have is just pain wrong.

Very nicely written. I agree completely.

These are not American citizens! The constitution covers Americans. These people would kill you in a second and we want to give them the same rights as me or you.

Crazy.