U.S. Supreme Court and Guantanamo Bay

Earlier today news came out about the decision of the Supreme Court in reference to the men held at Guantanamo Bay. The essence of that decision is that President Bush has overstepped his authority, limiting the rights of the detainees. As I understand it the decision also confers rights equivalent to those of a U.S. citizen and places the Geneva Convention statues upon them. This is wrong, in my opinion. It is also a difficult line to tread.

First, as I understand it, for the Geneva rules to apply there must be a nation involved. More specifically the combatants must represent a nation. Al Quaida is best described as an organization, based upon religion, with a very loose-knit central authority. There is no government that directs or claims them as its representatives. There has been no connection to any governmental body on the planet, which is something several governments have sought and continue to search for. There is no nation that is the permanent base or origination point of this group of people. It’s members are citizens of several countries, united by a faith and a desire to kill those who’s faith is not the same.

Secondly, The Geneva Convention was created and intended for nationalities in conflicts of war. War stated by formal declaration and recognized by other sovereign bodies. As I have stated before, [in A few words on politics, war, and Dr. Martin Luther King] individuals cannot declare a war, though they can fight in them and initiate battles. A nation cannot declare a war on individuals either. And it is impossible to fight an ideal, or faith, at all.

And of course there are prohibitions within the Convention on how war is to be waged. Civilians are not recognized targets. Children are to be avoided. The recognized soldiers are to be in uniforms, and/or provide identification of their representation of a specific nation. If prisoners are taken, they are not to be harmed or tortured or killed.

Given these facts, there cannot be prisoners of war, nor a declaration of such and thus no right to the protections in the Geneva Convention. Given that prisoners taken by members of this group have been killed, tortured and harmed they have violated the Convention they ask to be included in. Given is the fact that the Convention only applies to those countries that have signed and affirmed its rules. Further given is that this organization specifically targets civilians, and civil structures.

Thus I cannot see any reason to afford these men with the rights provided in the Geneva accord. For those that are not Americans I feel no need to provide the rights of Americans. In much the way that American law is not universal, so too are the rights conveyed to our citizens. It is a grand gesture to be sure, but it is a waste. Especially since there is no reason to presume that this will affect the outcome of current or future engagements. And that this is being pursued only to seek to frustrate the U.S. people, slow down the process of determining guilt or innocence, and an attempt to receive punishment to are an equivalent of a college beer keg party as compared to those in many of the countries these men originate from.

I would not give the same rights I have as a citizen to illegal aliens in this nation. The case of illegal immigrants in this nation mostly being of some benefit, as they provide cheap labor in various industries many Americans do not wish to do, can be made and yet that is not enough to grant equal rights. Why then would we give equal rights to those that not only disagree, but actively seek to pursue the destruction of civilians and our way of life. The President may have overstepped his bounds; but that does not convey those non-Americans held a right to the very things they are intent on destroying.

This is what I think, what do you think?