The stinking blossom of the totalitarian left: a follow-up

ModernConservative.com ^ | Christopher Cook

[connell]

We can -- and perhaps should -- have a discussion about the value or even the morality of rendition. However, we should be clear about something right off the bat, so we are not using incorrect terminology or assertions. Terrorists, stateless actors, pirates, etc. are not covered by the Geneva Convention. It's important that we all get that right, so we are not starting out with false assertions.

That said, those in our custody are being afforded **most** (albeit not all) of the considerations that would be given someone who is covered thereby.

And as far as I am concerned, I would need to know a lot more about these foreign prisons, where they were, who was running them, etc. before I could even take seriously the...

[Jack Black]

Didn't the USSC just rule that terrorists *are* covered by the Geneva Conventions. Anyone have a copy? A link to them? I've found them strangely difficult to get.

[BlueDragon]

Try;

Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld, from wikipedia

Scanning it briefly, just now, it seemed to outline the case well enough.

Hamdan will now need be tried by Military Courts Martial, instead of appointed Military Tribunal. The rules are a little different for Courts Martial, affording a defendant better chance of defense, all in all, I take it. Otherwise, nothing much has changed. What differs;
Rules of evidence, rules as to court appointment of attorneys(?),discovery rules, witness rules, cross examination, etc...if I'm remembering correctly.

Another, somewhat related case was Hamdi [note the different spelling of the litigant, it IS a different court case]. Google, or wiki -up on that name for outline.

"Findlaw", can provide copies of the documents actually filed. The latest Hamdan Supreme decision runs 47 pages. The U.S. District Court of Appeals was a tough read...