Precisely.
Posted on 05/03/2004 7:21:17 PM PDT by Dr. Marten
The word "prevent" was not use until your post!
Southhack merely made the statement that IF SCOTUS rules that these so called "combatants" have "rights" under the consititution - even when fighting AGAINST us, that the military would likely cease taking prisoner's and instead make use of the "illegal" combatants clauses of the Geneva Conventions - namely outright execution on the battlefield.
You mean "the outlandish argument that the Supreme Court is making", of course - this is not "my argument", this is the law.
...contrary to Article VI of our Constitution, would in effect hold that the U.S. was unilaterally abandoning the Geneva Conventions. The geopolitical ramifications of which would be incalculable.
Oh, well. You probably also won't believe me if I tell you that, constitutionally speaking, the US can withdraw from any treaty at any time by a simple act of Congress. But it's true, nonetheless.
Precisely.
Re-read the excerpt again. You failed the first time through. Note carefully that the reason for the semicolon is clearly explained.
[The] debates [which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution] as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect.
You've missed the big picture. Your above "reason" doesn't matter. What matters is that treaties do not have to be made pursuant to the Constitution's government restrictions, per Article VI in the Constitution itself.
Congress is an entirely different Branch of our government than is the Supreme Court.
What you were erroneously trying to say was that the Supreme Court could nullify a legally binding, Senate-ratified treaty.
That's a different thing altogether from that of Congress killing a treaty.
Please cite chapter and verse to support that outrageous claim. If the Geneva Convention(s) are that "clear" on this matter, this should be quite simple for you to do.
The fact is, the Geneva Convention(s) state no such thing. The best that can be said about the GC, is that it is silent as to the permitted dispositions for illegal enemy combatants. It is clear from your claim that either you haven't actually bothered to read the GC's, or else you've chosen to intentionally misrepresent them.
When you post something that clearly in error, it makes the rest of your arguments suspect, as well. And that is a shame, because other than your imprudent claim about the GC, you and I are in (general) agreement.
--Boot Hill
It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions.
Oops, strike that. I just read your goofy claim that treaties can overrule the Constitution. We are no longer "in general agreement".
--Boot Hill
No, enemy combatants captured under various circumstances can be tried by military tribunals or given summary executions on the battlefield if they are "unlawful combatants" under the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Conventions define and protects *lawful* combatants. Once the Geneva Conventions place someone under the *UNlawful* combatant catagory, they are then subject to "The Law of War" (among others).
I'm just the messenger. You aren't arguing with me so much as you are disagreeing with what our own Constitution says in Article VI.
Article VI
... "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
Citations, please.
As you said "the Geneva Convention...states *clearly*", so this should "clearly" be easy for you to show me.
--Boot Hill
The Geneva Conventions Treaty states clearly who is and is not a legal combatant.Those who are *not* legal combatants are not protected by the safeguards in the Geneva Conventions, and fall under other treaties and laws, such as the Law of War.
Without Geneva Conventions protections, unlawful combatants may be given summary battlefield justice, up to and including being shot on sight.
No, I'm arguing with Southack, who conveniently chooses to quote only half of the relevant portions of Article VI.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." (emphasis added)And I'm arguing with Southack, who conveniently chooses who chooses to ignore what the Supreme Court has said about your argument.
"The treaty power, as expressed in the constitution, is in terms unlimited, except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government, or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself, and of that of the states. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent." -- Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890)--Boot Hill
You'll have an easier time learning what Article VI says and means if you underline the full section rather than just half.
You have two separate parts. One part says that laws made by Congress must be pursuant to the Constitution. Then you have a clear semicolon showing that the pursuant to the Constitution part applies to those Congressional laws but not to what follows.
The second part that follows that semicolon shows that Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.
Yet you stated in your post #6 that...
"the Geneva Convention, which states *clearly* that enemy combatants who are not wearing a legally *recognized* military uniform or carrying military ID (dog tags) can be shot on sight or otherwise dealt with by the capturing Party.Is this your back-handed way of owning up to the fact that you were wrong about what the Geneva Convention(s) actually say?
--Boot Hill
Nit pick all that you will at my verbiage; it won't help your erroneous argument.
Clause 15 is about calling forth the militia, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion. Try putting just a little thought into your posts before hitting the Post button.
"The laws" you refer to include the treaties. That's why Article VI refers to them collectively as "the supreme Law of the Land".
--Boot Hill
And that does not entail the power to authorize what the Constitution does not allow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.