(no subject)

[razorjak]

So Chimpy McFuckstick doesn't think we're heading into a recession.

He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.

...

I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.

Comments

continued

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Illegal Combatants are detained in either POW type camps or in military prisons. Note that the German War Criminals were mostly soldiers, they were detained after the cessation of hostilities in a military prison in individual cells and were very limited in their movements. Their status as an illegal combatant is decided by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal which determines that status. It's not a habeas corpus hearing, it's a status hearing. If they're found by the evidence to NOT have violated the rules of war, they're put back into general holding with the POW's or released if the detaining power so chooses. If they are found to have been illegal combatants THEN they get a military trial, under military rules which decide the facts of the case like a soldier who was charged with say murder or desertion, with a military lawyer as defense and are found guilty or innocent.

Those found guilty have penalties up to murder to a few months or years in jail. Jail terms can last years after the clear cessation of the hostilities.

Terrorists fall under the category of saboteurs and spies. They don't wear uniforms, they attack illegal targets and they often don't adhere to other rules of war like respecting medical personnel and non combatants. Clearly defined soldiers who violate the rules of war (SS who executed prisoners or were pointed out by civilians as to have murdered civilians) were set aside from POW camps and were detained by the MPs in special camps and tried for those violations of war crimes.
To my knowledge, the Guantanamo Bay detainees have reached the point where they're getting the initial hearings. Some have been checked out already by earlier hearings which had issues under US law (the GC's state that the initial hearing MUST be codified in law, "Regularly Constituted"). A great number have been released while others have been detained. Due to the problems with the initial hearings those hearings must be redone because the Supreme Court found issue with the hearings as they were erected by the President's side. They found that Regularly Constituted meant that the courts must be legally erected under law. So, congress had to work out the procedures and pass a law articulating those procedures. I think some of that goes to powers allocated to the president vs those allocated to congress (To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court as it were).

Once their status is determined they'll start getting trials with a military lawyer or other lawyers assisting as it's a court case heard under UCMJ. I suggest you read up on Ex parte Quirin as well as Ex Parte Milligan. Johnson v Eisentrager is also interesting. Reviewing the relevant sections of the GC's might also be a good idea.

Also of note is that the accommodations of the prisoners, especially in the POW sense must be similar to than that which the guards who watch them are. Considering that the guards at Camp x-ray were staying in canvas tents in the Cuban heat, I was surprised at the number of people complaining about the covered but open air cages that the prisoners had at Camp X-ray.