[eDebate] Quirin Decsion-is it doubly moot now?...(maybe...maybe not)

Brett Wallace bretagus
Tue Jul 11 14:13:28 CDT 2006

Its not moot...congress is holding hearings and can
decide whether they want to authorize the executive to
establish military tribunals or set up a military
courts martial. no doubt though, we wont know exactly
what is going on in the literature until after the
topic has been voted on. I for one think  that there
will always be some type of an advantage the aff can
run depending on what congress decides, and it would
be strategic because you would be able to non unqiue
most perception issues. ALso, with the negative
running uniquness CP's the entire geneva/enemy
combatant literature can be debated and the aff still
has to be ready for that CP. Lastly...this seems
ensure that one area of the topic would contiously be
updated and ensure that fresh and new articles and law
reviews are written about it. I for one think it
should still be included (cough, list number 6)

I know some people might not want to vote for a quirin
area now so if they do want a non quirin list i think
the best alterantive is list number seven (4
cases)..cross apply previous people's objection to an
unlimited resolution. The alternative would be list
number 5 (the 2nd biggest list) 


The Senate is unlikely to take up legislation
addressing the legal rights of suspected terrorists
until after Congress' August recess, Majority Leader
Bill Frist said Monday.

Frist's plan not to act until this fall pushes the
Guantanamo issue squarely into election season, when
Republicans will be seeking support from voters by
focusing on national security issues.

Republicans are discussing their legislative options
among themselves, Democrats and the Bush
administration, said Frist, a Republican. 

"We will act legislatively," he said.

The Supreme Court on June 29 ruled 5-to-3 that
President George W. Bush's plan to try detainees
captured in the war on terror through military
tribunals violated U.S. and international law. Some
450 detainees are being held at the Guantanamo Bay
prison in Cuba.

The decision put the ball in Congress' court to pass
legislation dictating how suspected terrorists should
be prosecuted.

Lawmakers and congressional aides say there are a
range of options that could be pursued, including
passing legislation specifically authorizing Bush's
proposed military tribunals or setting up a system
similar to military courts-martial.
--- scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote:

> I frankly don't don't know because I have not read
> law reviews on the case. But
> this is what I do know:
> 1) Scalia in a recent dissent says the Quirin
> decsion is now moot. and
> 2) CNN just reported that GITMO detainees are now
> going to be accorded all the
> Geneva Convention rights for Prisoners of War.
> I am just raising the question. But then again, it
> is probably too late for this
> to have any impact on the resolution selection vote.
> See below:
> Sources: Rights pledge for Gitmo detainees
> Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Posted: 9:33 a.m. EDT (13:33
> GMT)
>  WASHINGTON (CNN) -- All detainees in U.S. military
> custody at Guantanamo Bay,
> Cuba, are to be granted all the privileges of the
> Geneva Conventions, sources
> have told CNN.
> This is the first time the detainees -- including
> those suspected of being
> members of al Qaeda -- will have the full protection
> of the international
> conventions on holding prisoners of war.
> The new guidelines are to be released in a memo from
> the Pentagon, the sources
> said on Tuesday.
> The Bush administration has previously declared the
> prisoners held at the
> Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to be "enemy
> combatants," but did not
> consider them prisoners of war who must be accorded
> the rights spelled out by
> the Geneva Conventions.
> Guantanamo Bay holds about 460 people suspected of
> links to al Qaeda or the
> Taliban, who were captured in the wake of the
> U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan
> after the September 11 attacks. They are detained
> without trial or the right to
> family visits.
> Detention without charges runs counter to
> established human-rights law, and the
> U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that prisoners
> could challenge their detention
> in U.S. courts.
> Last month the Supreme Court also strongly limited
> the power of the Bush
> administration to conduct military tribunals for
> suspected terrorists at the
> camp. However it did not address the government's
> right to detain suspects.
> After that ruling U.S. Attorney General Alberto
> Gonzales told CNN the ruling
> "hampered our ability" to deal with terrorists.
> (Full story)
> The White House had planned to try suspects in
> military tribunals as "enemy
> combatants." They would not be eligible for the
> rights, as established by the
> Geneva Conventions, guaranteed to prisoners of war.
> (Watch analyst say
> administration has to start over -- 3:50)
> Saying that many people detained at Guantanamo Bay
> have been freed and returned
> to their homes, Gonzales said the United States had
> "no great desire to hold
> people forever and we don't intend to hold people
> forever."
> Asked about the court's conclusion that the
> administration's system doesn't meet
> the basic requirements guaranteed by the Geneva
> Convention on rights of
> prisoners of war, Gonzales said the White House
> needed to study the issue
> before it responded.
> "I will say that from the outset the president has
> said that people detained by
> the military are going to be treated consistent with
> the principle of the
> Geneva Convention subject to military necessity."
> Gonzales questioned the adequacy of a court-martial,
> as opposed to tribunal, in
> trying al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.
> Under a court-martial, Gonzales said, bin Laden
> would "receive the same sort of
> procedures and protections that we afford members of
> our military" if he were
> captured.
> Most Gitmo prisoners were captured in Afghanistan,
> where U.S. troops are still
> battling the Taliban, the Islamic movement that
> harbored al Qaeda when it ruled
> Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.
> The camp was condemned around the world shortly
> after it opened when pictures
> were published showing prisoners kneeling, shackled
> and being herded into wire
> cages.
> It intensified after reports of prisoner abuse,
> heavy-handed interrogations,
> hunger strikes, suicides and accounts from released
> detainees who described
> years of desperation associated with the legal limbo
> that has ensnared hundreds
> of prisoners.
> The suicides of three detainees at Guantanamo Bay
> last month sparked renewed
> calls for the U.S. prison camp to be shut down.
> "Guantanamo should be closed. This is an occasion to
> reiterate that statement,"
> EU External Relations Commissioner Benita
> Ferrero-Waldner said at the time.
> Jumana Musa, Amnesty International USA's advocacy
> director for domestic human
> rights and international justice, released a
> statement pointedly blaming the
> Bush administration for the suicides and calling
> Guantanamo "an indictment on
> its deteriorating human rights record."
> "By rounding up men from all over the world and
> confining them in an isolated
> penal colony without charge or trial, the United
> States has violated several
> U.S. and international laws and treaties," Musa said
> in the statement.
> In May the U.N. issued a report saying that holding
> suspects indefinitely
> without charges violates the world torture ban and
> established human rights
> law.
> The May 19 report called for the shutdown of
> Guantanamo and any secret prisons
> the U.S. operates.
> CNN's Barbara Starr contributed to this report.
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the Mailman mailing list