Posted on 11/10/2004 7:50:26 AM PST by RebelTex
---snip---
Anyway, the military tribunal was all set to try Hamdan when U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson ruled the Bush administration had no right to declare the man an enemy combatant. Robertson went on to say Hamdan should be classified a prisoner of war and given Geneva Convention protections
Robertson ruled this despite these facts: Hamdan was not fighting for any country, Hamdan wore no uniform on the battlefield, Hamdan was a member of at least one terrorist group, possibly two.
Judge Robertson also ruled that the Geneva Convention protections supersede any presidential order or designation by military tribunal. In effect, the judge saying that all captured foreign terrorists are prisoners of war.
This, of course, is insane and would make prosecuting terrorists almost impossible.
---snip---
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Write or call your senator. Start a blog, become active.
I seem to recall him from the clinton scandal?
Mike
Who nominated him?? Clinton or Carter??
He also could stand to actually READ the "Geneva Conventions", before citing them as precedent. As I understand them, those conventions apply only to uniformed soldiers fighting as part of an organized army. "Insurgents" (correctly=terrorists) appear not to be covered.
Clinton
Not surprisingly, O'Reilly distorted the facts. What the judge ACTUALLY ruled is that until a competent tribunal determines whether or not he is eligible for POW status, he can only be charged by court-martial. A competent tribunal means one that is designed to assess a prisoner's status under the Geneva Convention.
This judge needs to be subjected to a rigorous psychological analysis.
link:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/07/01/hubbell/ruling/
Charges Dropped Against Hubbell
U.S. District Judge James Robertson dismissed tax evasion charges against former Justice Department official and presidential friend Webster Hubbell, calling the indictment brought by Independent Counsel Ken Starr "the quintessential fishing expedition." Also cleared were Hubbell's wife Suzanna, his accountant Michael Schaufele, and his tax attorney Charles Owen, the court confirmed.
Isn't "enemy combatant" just the Bush Administration's way of suspending Habeas Corpus? Unfortunately for Jorge, only the Congress is authorized to suspend Habeas Corpus. If Congress had GIVEN the president this power for the purpose of fighting terrorism, I would be more than happy to label the suspected terrorist an "enemy combatant" and be done with it.
All the Geneva Convention BS aside, the judge is right about the "enemy combatant" designation; Bush currently does not have that right. However, if this judge is a judicial activist in general, that is yet another reason not to allow Arlen Specter to chair the judiciary committee.
more on the judge:
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=809
Court Upholds Wetlands Protections
Developers fail in attempt to undermine federal rule
March 31st, 2004
Contact Info:
Howard Fox/Cat Lazaroff, Earthjustice, 202-667-4500
Wendy Balazik, Sierra Club, 202-675-2383
Julie Sibbing, National Wildlife Federation, 202-797-6832
Print-Friendly Version
Washington DC-- In a victory for strong protections for our nation’s waters, a federal judge today rejected industry challenges to a key Clean Water Act rule that protects wetlands and streams from unpermitted destruction. The ruling from Judge James Robertson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will help to prevent damage to the country’s wetlands and streams resulting from landclearing, ditching, and mining.
Nice rant. However, I'm not sure that limited terms for these federal judges & Supreme Court would be good. IMHO, this would politicize the courts even more. We just need to be more vocal and demand impeachment for activist judges.
As I recall, we are not a party to the Geneva Conventions.
Seems odd that they would be applied to our legal system.
Oops, sorry, forgot about the agenda thing.....
The US has ratified most elements of the 1950 protocols of the convention. There is a notation that suggests we have made some sort of statement that we won't uphold some provision or another (I hadn't figured out what -- the Intl Red Cross site didn't say). There have been two further updates to the Geneva Conventions since then, and the US has ratified neither.
This judge may be correct, though, for Treaty Law does indeed supercede US law -- even the Constitution itself. That, of course is why the DEMs desparately wasnt to use the UN and Treaty Law to make a bunch of things "legal" that they cannot pass in our legislatures. Treaty Law is a very dangerous thing.
This jugde must be impeached.
He threw out the case against Hubbel resulting in the loss of leverage against him and his not testifying against Clinton.
On what do you base this conclusion. The Constitution does give the power to make treaties to the president, but then treaties have to be ratified by congress before being upheld and in force. However, treaties can be, have been, and are broken. Just look at history. (For example: most treaties with Indian tribes/nations have been broken.)
Broken treaties often lead to war, so the consequences are grave - but sometimes justified and necessary.
We cannot accept the premise that treaty law, or for that matter the UN or any other countries laws, supersede the US Constitution.
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.