"If that crazy, stupid, America-hating, liberal Judge’s..."
You've kinda distilled the problem right there.
...The terrorists that we are at war with do not comply with No. 1, and do not comply with ...
I'm afraid we are at war with home-grown terrorists too. The appeasing and sypathetic LIBERALS in the press, the DIMocRATic party and hollyweird do more harm to our country combined than al-qaeda could EVER do!
Have we ever been engaged in a war, where the enemy has treated our prisoners according to the constraints of the Convention? That in itself would show that there is no treaty, since the parties to it do not exist.
"If that crazy, stupid, America-hating, liberal Judge’s ruling.."
That would be the Supreme Court and the Hamdan decision. I agree with you, the Geneva Convention doesn't cover these terrorists. But 5 libs on the SC just made it so.
Here is the decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf#search=%22hamdan%20decision%20supreme%20court%22
Here is the WaPo take on it. (Just a straighforward recap) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html
This is the greatest reason for every conservative to hit the polls hard this November, and vote REPUBLICAN! We have to retain the Senate to have a chance of putting a conservative judge in for the majority vote on the SC!!!
With a different court, this decision can be overturned in the future. Unfortunately, we are stuck with it for now, and if Dems take the Senate, we will be forever.
< Phraseology Police>
Well, actually it is. The Constitution itself defines the "supreme law of the land" as including ratified treaties. (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution)
Your point is that terrorists do not qualify for the belligerent rights under the Geneva Convention and you are absolutely correct. If the U.S. denies belligerent right privileges to terrorists (which include POW rights), the U.S. is simply following the Geneva Convention.
However, by phrasing your point by saying that "THE U. S. IS NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION" you are handing our opponents a ready-made Straw-man they can easily beat the stuffings out of.
Your point is actually, "UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION, THE U. S. IS NOT OBLIGATED TO GRANT TERRORISTS BELLIGERENT RIGHTS".
Your original title might be eye catching but it is self defeating.
< /Phraseology Police>
While I understand your sentiment, your statement is untrue. The US IS obligated to follow the Geneva Convention......
BUT- the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists.
Terrorism is an ideology, not a country, so they cannot be parties to the contract, nor do they observe its provisions.
If it attacks like an animal, exterminate it like one.
I went and read the Geneva Convention and didn't have to go far to disprove your point...........sorry.
"Article 5
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
No such tribunal even exists.
The Geneva Convention is a treaty not a law. What jurisdiction over the US compliance to a treaty does the judicial branch have?
It should correctly state:
The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist, not that the US is not bound by the GC.
Regards, Ivan
It does make things a bit difficult when you're the only one playing by the rules.
Someone ask McCain and his Senate Al-Queda Caucus what the Geneva Convention says about the 2 U.S. soldiers who were burned alive and dragged through the streets last week. McCain, Collins, Graham and Warner are traitors to this nation. Period.