I have read the Geneva Convention, read what others have written in regards whom it covers and does not cover and frankly I cannot see logically how the Geneva Convention can be properly applied to terrorists. The Supreme Court really went the wrong way on this.

Geneva Conventions primary goal-namely upholding the laws of war. By granting terrorists Geneva Convention protections, there is now no incentive for them or any future terrorist organization or army of a foreign nation to follow the rules of war as laid out in the GC, since these terrorists/future terrorists know they will receive Geneva Convention protections from the Americans anyway. In effect, the Supreme Court killed the GC with its ruling.

*The first 2 lines of the above comment got cut off*-

The Supreme Court's ruling granting GC protections to terrorists effectively negates the...

freedom,

by definition "terrorism" doesn't follow rules of war.

Nearly every country in the world is already signed onto the GCs, so unless we have a mass migration AWAY from them, then theoretically they are bound by its laws.

The SCOTUS didn't kill anything, read the darn ruling, all it says is that the congress is required to setup rules for how the "competant tribunals" are to be administered. SCOTUS basically told congress to do it's job and figure out how we are going to deal with a bunch of possible terrorists we are keeping holed up in GITMO. We don't have to release anyone, but we can't torture them and we aren't allowed to lock em' up without some mechanism to define their status.

What the SCOTUS decision does do, is protect our people. Let's say that a spy is captured by a foreign nation, if another country were to follow our interpretation of GCs, then they are free to torture and indefinately imprison one of our citizens without having to give them access to a lawyer or a way to refute the charges.

Well, if we are to believe the administration in that they have not sanctioned torture, then this is not a change in policy. However, in terms of the spirit of their policies, Cheney lobbied congress against a torture ban, and Bush's signing statement on the McCain torture ban (which basically bypassed the whole legislation) does kind of put a sour taste in my mouth when it comes to us not torturing people.

If we abandon our principles in dealing with these terrorists, then what are we even fighting for?

TEO-"by definition "terrorism" doesn't follow rules of war."

My point exactly. And the SC just granted them GC protections. So, now thanks to the SC, no one else has to either.

freedom,

you're missing the point. because we are bound by the GCs, we are required to uphold them, even if the people we capture aren't. It's one of those 'quaint' little facts of living in a civilized society which respects the laws it passes.

Non story. Throw away the key.

No, TEO, you're missing the point. Terrorists DON'T qualify for GC protections because they are terrorists who don't follow the rules of war as laid out by the Geneva Conventions.

freedom,

there are only TWO distinctions that people we capture fall under, either POW or "civilian criminal".

Which one are terrorists?

Neither. They are terrorists. That's why the Geneva Conventions don't cover them.

Terrorists are terrorists. Simple enough. Why can't the moonbats grasp this simple concept?

I have no clue, dude.

Freedom,

thats interesting, since terrorism existed before GCs were drafted, and yet according to you they just decided not to even touch the subject of them, when they took GREAT pains to mention EVERYONE ELSE!.

Can you explain to me why they aren't criminals?

Are we at war or not? You say "terrorists" do not fit the definition of war yet you seem to believe we are engaged with a war on terror. Pick one and stick with it! This thinking would be similar to a British blogger in the Revolutionary war saying that the Americans are not subject to the rules of war because they do not line up on the field of battle in bright colored uniforms. This provincial thinking is the very reason this administration has so much trouble dealing with other countries.

So the 'folks' that President Bush praised last week in Budapest are not terrorist? So the Amercian Revolutionaries are not terrorists? Do you think that the 'terrorists' see themselves as terrorists? Isn't it always the empire who chooses the term? The USSR, George II....

"What the SCOTUS decision does do, is protect our people. Let's say that a spy is captured by a foreign nation, if another country were to follow our interpretation of GCs, then they are free to torture and indefinately imprison one of our citizens without having to give them access to a lawyer or a way to refute the charges."

Yeah, it sure worked with those two soldiers who were butchered and mutilated after they were captured. So glad that the Geneva convention protected them, right TEO?

Freedom,

The point of the GCs was that in ANY armed conflict, that EVERYONE was covered by the rules of war, if they aren't then they are criminals, and subject to the courts of the force which captured them; So yes, they are covered by the GCs

Third Eye Open,

TEO-"thats interesting, since terrorism existed before GCs were drafted..."

TEO, has it ever occurred to you that terrorism is the reason why the Geneva Conventions were drafted?? The GC's set out the rules of war to prevent the kind of atrocious actions that terrorists like Al Qaeda perpetrate on a daily basis. The GC's are designed to provide a civilizing force on warfare. Those that violate the Geneva Conventions are no longer protected by them. That's the consequence for not adhering to the GC's.

Remember, TEO, torture is ALREADY OUTLAWED by the US Constitution. America must adhere to our Constitution which prohibits "cruel and unusual treatment".

TEO, we just need to update the GC's to specifically address terrorism and the treatment of terrorists, not get rid of the GC's entirely.