I herd on the ABC that the US's Highest court ruled that guantantimo IS under the courts duristiction

does this now mean that everyone from the ground up just got war crimes charges?

because doesnt US law surport the geniva convention?

Or are they all charged with crimes under the US crimes act?

You got a link or something?

And yes, the US law does support the Geneva Convention but it doesn't extend the convention to the outskirts of Guantanimo - possibly suggesting the secrecy of the camp and the heavy guards that maybe torture is a possible occurence over there.

no i dont have a link because it was a radio interview with the lawyer for david hicks

It's been on various news stations on TV today. If it's not the sovereignty of Iraq being handed over, it'll be this that's on, heh.

- N

Ok. I found a link on ABC in case anyone wants the read.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040628_2129.html
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040628_1881.html

A video of it can be found on this page:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/

can i just state that the interview i herd was on the Australian Broudcasting Commision not the US ABC

I herd on the ABC that the US's Highest court ruled that guantantimo IS under the courts duristiction

does this now mean that everyone from the ground up just got war crimes charges?

because doesnt US law surport the geniva convention?

Or are they all charged with crimes under the US crimes act?

The court made a very specific ruling, namely, that those held at Guantanamo Bay (and Guantanamo only) for more than two years could challenge their continued detainment in a US Court. There were no afforded rights to trial, appeal, etc. The US need not prove guilt or innocense beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply provide cause for continuing to hold an individual. There's also no requirement that formal criminal charges be brought against these persons, at any time.

Surly the rulling would put them under the control of the high court meaning that they have the same rights as everyone else?

The process by which detainees can present a legal "challenge" must be understood within the context of American newspeak: "Sovereignty" of Iraq, and Iraqi "custody" of Saddam are among other examples of our linguistic hegemony. These and any other words we require for our security are henceforth US property, and will be used as we see fit. Welcome to the New American Century, comrades.

"I will work harder!"

The Geneva convention applies to convientional combat forces only. For example, if Special Forces soilders are captured wearing civilian clothing then they lose any rights granted by the Geneva convention. Sorry Al-queda.

and what about the taliban solders?
who are afterall the REGUAL army of that country

or the IRAQ solders?

everyone is either held under the geniva convention OR charged under CIVILLAN LAW

NO gray areas and anyway the geniva convention STATES that if they are unsure about the statice of a person an INTERNATIONAL BODY desideds and they get the geniva convention untill the decision is made

has that happend?

No Iraqi soldiers ended up in Gitmo. Taliban "soldiers" weren't wearing uniforms.

Your statement that one has to be either held under Geneva Convention or be charged under civilian law is incorrect (even according to the Supreme Court).

Any other questions?

OH THATS RIGHT

you declare war on someone then claim that cause they fight back they are illegal

RIGHT

Guantanimo Bay is a nice place. Used to live there. :m:

By the way this is the interview that started this thread (just found the transcript)

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1142574.htm