Friday, July 15, 2005

non-law ignorance admittal.

So I've been looking, & looking, & I can't find it. Maybe I don't know where to look to find it. Which leads me to the following:
Question for my legal people :

Hamdan's trial was halted by a district court judge who declared the military tribunal procedures unlawful. U.S. District Judge James Robertson had ruled that the trial could not proceed until a decision had been made on whether Hamdan was a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.

The appeals court said that ruling was wrong, and said the Geneva Conventions do not help Hamdan.

"One problem for Hamdan is that he does not fit the ... definition of a 'prisoner of war' entitled to the protection of the convention," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in a 20-page ruling. "Another problem for Hamdan is that the 1949 Convention does not apply to al Qaeda and its members."


Claris' question : Um...Why not?

Just because you say they don't doesn't mean they don't. I mean, from the devil's advocate point that y'all are supposedly able to argue from any objective point of view, what's their actual...justification for it? Is there even any? Because the one thing I can't seem to find is, you know... a reason that Geneva doesn't apply. If we would expect N. Korea or China to treat our prisoners humanely in a situation where they've acquired U.S. soldiers in a time when war hasn't been formally announced, what's the government's justification for not doing so during occupation of another country?

Because I can't seem to find any established judgement that allows them to even make that decision. On the one hand, there's...the Geneva Convention. On the other, there doesn't even seem to be a little-known blue law from Massachusetts circa 1710 regarding how high women can lift their skirt to cross a puddle to help with their argument. I just figured I'd ask.

So I suppose my question is - what are they specifically citing in their argument that justifies this? Now, if it's just a shitty position & they're using some sort of arcane loophole, what's their citation for it? What's their documentation? 'cause otherwise, I could pretty much just declare myself president. Why? Because I say so, and hey, they did it!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home