I must admit ignorance of the exact text of the geneva conventions, but I'm fairly sure the Supreme Court has read up on them.
But I do know something of the aplicable laws and customs in the US and attempted to clarify why the Supreme Court does have the authority it's claiming.
The register article lined elsewhere matches my reasoning quite closely:
www.theregister.co.uk/200...page2.html
There have been 759 source prisoners in Guantanamo and only 10 of them have been charged with a crime. The release of 100 or so is planned because they are innocent. That is too big of a miss rate to cassualy trample the rights of the people there.
People who trade their Freedom for Saftey don't deserve either.
But I do know something of the aplicable laws and customs in the US and attempted to clarify why the Supreme Court does have the authority it's claiming.
Quote:This is an old argument the constituion (specifically the 4'th amendment) says 'persons', not 'citizens'. This has created quite a bit of argument between the lawyers, and I don't feel qualified to give a definite answer, but my gut feeling is it applies.
However I do not believe non-citizens of the United States should get the full benefit of our constitution.
The register article lined elsewhere matches my reasoning quite closely:
www.theregister.co.uk/200...page2.html
Quote:So if the goverment could somehow remove citizenship from you they could legaly do whatever they want with you?
If you believe otherwise that is your right and I respect it, but I cannot agree with that viewpoint especially for a enemy that wishes to destroy said constitution.
There have been 759 source prisoners in Guantanamo and only 10 of them have been charged with a crime. The release of 100 or so is planned because they are innocent. That is too big of a miss rate to cassualy trample the rights of the people there.
People who trade their Freedom for Saftey don't deserve either.