Brett Kavanaugh On Guantanamo Detainees: International Law Doesn’t Matter

[JacksinPA]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...international-law_us_5b453053e4b0c523e263ca03

Trump’s Supreme Court nominee spent years defending the government’s right to imprison some people without charge.

WASHINGTON — Liberal critics of Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, have deep concerns about how he might rule on cases related to abortion, capital punishment, gerrymandering, affirmative action and LGBTQ rights.

But one substantial part of Kavanaugh’s record has received significantly less attention: a long series of opinions defending the (largely ineffectual) military commissions system that presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, along with Congress, created and oversaw to try the terrorism suspects imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

For a few years during the Bush administration, federal judges had repeatedly intervened to protect the rights of people detained at the prison camp. During his time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh opposed ― and helped undercut ― that trend. His efforts served to legitimize Gitmo’s kangaroo courts.
==============================================================================================
Legitimize kangaroo courts - love it.

kan·ga·roo court
ˈˌkaNGɡəˈro͞o ˌkôrt
noun
an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...international-law_us_5b453053e4b0c523e263ca03

Trump’s Supreme Court nominee spent years defending the government’s right to imprison some people without charge.

WASHINGTON — Liberal critics of Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, have deep concerns about how he might rule on cases related to abortion, capital punishment, gerrymandering, affirmative action and LGBTQ rights.

But one substantial part of Kavanaugh’s record has received significantly less attention: a long series of opinions defending the (largely ineffectual) military commissions system that presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, along with Congress, created and oversaw to try the terrorism suspects imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

For a few years during the Bush administration, federal judges had repeatedly intervened to protect the rights of people detained at the prison camp. During his time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh opposed ― and helped undercut ― that trend. His efforts served to legitimize Gitmo’s kangaroo courts.
==============================================================================================
Legitimize kangaroo courts - love it.

kan·ga·roo court
ˈˌkaNGɡəˈro͞o ˌkôrt
noun
an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.

When this guy is explained to me as the ultimate Establishment insider this is what I expect to see, as this has been the policy of this government for almost two decades now.

 

[cuban smokes]

in America, or as America is currently known as , 'Merca, 'due process' is supposed to be a Constitutional right.

Well, TWO of the worst Presidential abusers of the 'due process' concept were who? Yep; that's right ....... Abe Lincoln & G W Bush. Both of these asshole ARE Republicans.

Republicans are basically Fascist by nature so, denying citizens rights, or denying persons on certain soil their 'due process' is not a big deal to fascist Republicans.

I'm confident that Kavanaugh has fascist leanings and will be an even better Fascist under Trump, if approved for SCOTUS.

You know what we say in Nawlins? 'Let the Fascist times roll' .............

 

[Linc]

in America, or as America is currently known as , 'Merca, 'due process' is supposed to be a Constitutional right.

Well, TWO of the worst Presidential abusers of the 'due process' concept were who? Yep; that's right ....... Abe Lincoln & G W Bush. Both of these asshole ARE Republicans.

Republicans are basically Fascist by nature so, denying citizens rights, or denying persons on certain soil their 'due process' is not a big deal to fascist Republicans.

I'm confident that Kavanaugh has fascist leanings and will be an even better Fascist under Trump, if approved for SCOTUS.

You know what we say in Nawlins? 'Lets the Fascist times roll' .............

Korrupt Kav is the 21st Century version of BORK. Yet with Bill Clinton and Ken Starr, he believed just the opposite on investigating a SITTING president.

McConnellism was spot on again about steering clear of KK. I probably could have tried to stomach Hardiman. Manchin will sell out first.

goPCs are saving Coney Barrett for Justice Ginsburg, a woman for a woman, as with Justice Thomas. CT is actually the only gop Justice not to be nominated by purity progs and libs.

 

[Common Sense 1]

OK here is the start of Kavanaugh is bad, no we mean really bad!!
Try to understand that the democrats in the Senate can not stop the nomination.
So you best get ready for Justice Kavanaugh before the fall session of the supreme court.

President Trump sending the left into convulsions again.

 

[Mr Person]

Legitimize kangaroo courts - love it.

kan·ga·roo court
ˈˌkaNGɡəˈro͞o ˌkôrt
noun
an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.

Results you don't like =/= Kangaroo court.

Same mistake many on the right make with the "judicial activist" crap.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

in America, or as America is currently known as , 'Merca, 'due process' is supposed to be a Constitutional right.

Well, TWO of the worst Presidential abusers of the 'due process' concept were who? Yep; that's right ....... Abe Lincoln & G W Bush. Both of these asshole ARE Republicans.

Republicans are basically Fascist by nature so, denying citizens rights, or denying persons on certain soil their 'due process' is not a big deal to fascist Republicans.

I'm confident that Kavanaugh has fascist leanings and will be an even better Fascist under Trump, if approved for SCOTUS.

You know what we say in Nawlins? 'Let the Fascist times roll' .............

Also Obama lied about closing down the blacksites prisons and kept using them. Hes just as guilty as Bush. And its been a year and Trump hasnt closed them down either so he is also now guilty.

 

[Beaudreaux]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...international-law_us_5b453053e4b0c523e263ca03

Trump’s Supreme Court nominee spent years defending the government’s right to imprison some people without charge.

WASHINGTON — Liberal critics of Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, have deep concerns about how he might rule on cases related to abortion, capital punishment, gerrymandering, affirmative action and LGBTQ rights.

But one substantial part of Kavanaugh’s record has received significantly less attention: a long series of opinions defending the (largely ineffectual) military commissions system that presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, along with Congress, created and oversaw to try the terrorism suspects imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

For a few years during the Bush administration, federal judges had repeatedly intervened to protect the rights of people detained at the prison camp. During his time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh opposed ― and helped undercut ― that trend. His efforts served to legitimize Gitmo’s kangaroo courts.
==============================================================================================
Legitimize kangaroo courts - love it.

kan·ga·roo court
ˈˌkaNGɡəˈro͞o ˌkôrt
noun
an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.

The United States of America is a sovereign nation, and is only bound by it's Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and International Treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. The US does not bow or genuflect to other countries, or their laws, that are not part of a treaty where the US is a signatory and the US Senate has ratified the treaty.

The al Qaeda members at Gitmo are not enemy combatants as defined by the Geneva or the Hague Conventions, and are categorized as "unlawful combatants" and do not have Prisoner of War Status, where the Taliban held at Gitmo are given Prisoner of War status by the US government.

The US is not bound by international law that we are not a signatory bound by treaty.

As a US citizen, and a former member of the US military, I'm glad we are not bound by International Law that's created and enforced by other countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

The United States of America is a sovereign nation, and is only bound by it's Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and International Treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. The US does not bow or genuflect to other countries, or their laws, that are not part of a treaty where the US is a signatory and the US Senate has ratified the treaty.

The al Qaeda members at Gitmo are not enemy combatants as defined by the Geneva or the Hague Conventions, and are categorized as "unlawful combatants" and do not have Prisoner of War Status, where the Taliban held at Gitmo are given Prisoner of War status by the US government.

The US is not bound by international law that we are not a signatory bound by treaty.

As a US citizen, and a former member of the US military, I'm glad we are not bound by International Law that's created and enforced by other countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

They have been labled "Unlawful Combatants" we dont know if they actually are or not.

 

[ecofarm]

They have been labled "Unlawful Combatants" we dont know if they actually are or not.

How do you expect to find out?

 

[dirtpoorchris]

How do you expect to find out?

By applying the same standards to them as we would to any one of use. And give him a fair NORMAL trial. The same exact trial we would give to any one of ourselves.

 

[Beaudreaux]

They have been labled "Unlawful Combatants" we dont know if they actually are or not.

The al Qaeda guys meet all the points of the definition of an unlawful combatant. It can and has been argued that the Taliban are unlawful combatants as well, but the Taliban met some of the points to be recognized as a Prisoner of War - one being that they were an actual organized military force - so they fall under the protections of the Geneva and Hague Conventions, al Qaeda is not and does not.

 

[ecofarm]

By applying the same standards to them as we would to any one of use. And give him a fair NORMAL trial. The same exact trial we would give to any one of ourselves.

The qualifications they possess for a given category are not in question. A trial would not discover anything new regarding that. It's not like, "the trial revealed Al Q is the military unit of a country, Atlantis. We had no idea. Good thing we had a trial".

 

[Moon]

Guantanamo?? Didn't the previous President promise to close that place? It can't possibly still be open if that's the case.

 

[Nickyjo]

The United States of America is a sovereign nation, and is only bound by it's Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and International Treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. The US does not bow or genuflect to other countries, or their laws, that are not part of a treaty where the US is a signatory and the US Senate has ratified the treaty.

The al Qaeda members at Gitmo are not enemy combatants as defined by the Geneva or the Hague Conventions, and are categorized as "unlawful combatants" and do not have Prisoner of War Status, where the Taliban held at Gitmo are given Prisoner of War status by the US government.

The US is not bound by international law that we are not a signatory bound by treaty.

As a US citizen, and a former member of the US military, I'm glad we are not bound by International Law that's created and enforced by other countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

If we have ratified treaties, we are bound by international law. Otherwise we are not, as you say. But I believe that treaties we are bound by do affect those held at GTMO. We exercise de facto and de jure control over GTMO, and the Supremes decided that Haitian refugees held there had their asylum claims properly reviewed, since it is US territory, having never belonged to an independent Cuba. If the Haitians were entitled to due process there, so should the detainees. I also assume that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture would apply, as they were also ratified by the US. The US has reviewed some cases and released some prisoners, so it has acted humanely, though not fully in compliance with the law.

Bottom line: holding people indefinitely without charge or trial goes against common notions of fairness, disgraces us before the world, and strains or breaks laws designed to uphold the principles of law we preach to others. It is also a form of mental torture. We should not act like Russia, Saudi Arabia or Iran, who do not adhere to international law, and whose current government's did not create it. If you look it up, however, you will find that other countries, much more like us than those three, have created and enforced international law.

Second bottom line. Power corrupts. US did this because it had power on its side, not the law.

 

[Beaudreaux]

If we have ratified treaties, we are bound by international law. Otherwise we are not, as you say. But I believe that treaties we are bound by do affect those held at GTMO. We exercise de facto and de jure control over GTMO, and the Supremes decided that Haitian refugees held there had their asylum claims properly reviewed, since it is US territory, having never belonged to an independent Cuba. If the Haitians were entitled to due process there, so should the detainees. I also assume that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture would apply, as they were also ratified by the US. The US has reviewed some cases and released some prisoners, so it has acted humanely, though not fully in compliance with the law.

Bottom line: holding people indefinitely without charge or trial goes against common notions of fairness, disgraces us before the world, and strains or breaks laws designed to uphold the principles of law we preach to others. It is also a form of mental torture. We should not act like Russia, Saudi Arabia or Iran, who do not adhere to international law, and whose current government's did not create it. If you look it up, however, you will find that other countries, much more like us than those three, have created and enforced international law.

Second bottom line. Power corrupts. US did this because it had power on its side, not the law.

A treaty itself of which the US is a signatory is actual law and recognized as such in the US Constitution. Extraneous international laws that are not a specific part of a treaty with which the US is a signatory and ratified by the Senate, are not law under the US Constitution, and that includes executive agreements such as the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Agreement for Global Warming that Obama signed - they are not law under the US Constitution and the US us not subject to their control or restrictions. The Geneva and Hague Conventions are not international law but rather they are treaties that have the power of law on the signatories and since they are treaties ratified by the US Senate they are therefore binding upon the US as US Law.

Here's a list of treaties that have not been ratified by the Senate, some of which the US signed, others that we have not, none of which are law binding upon the US, but are in fact international law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_unsigned_or_unratified_by_the_United_States

Here's a list of treaties that are still in front of the Senate awaiting ratification, many of which have been waiting on a vote in the Senate for decades: https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/pending/

What Kavanaugh said, is correct. The US is bound by treaties, but not international law. In accordance with the US Constitution, a treaty that the US is a signatory is de facto US law and recognized in US courts as such, not as international law.

 

[TobyOne]

Nobody cares what the huffingtonpost thinks. Well, liberals do I guess which amounts to the same thing.

 

[Nickyjo]

A treaty itself of which the US is a signatory is actual law and recognized as such in the US Constitution. Extraneous international laws that are not a specific part of a treaty with which the US is a signatory and ratified by the Senate, are not law under the US Constitution, and that includes executive agreements such as the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Agreement for Global Warming that Obama signed - they are not law under the US Constitution and the US us not subject to their control or restrictions. The Geneva and Hague Conventions are not international law but rather they are treaties that have the power of law on the signatories and since they are treaties ratified by the US Senate they are therefore binding upon the US as US Law.

Here's a list of treaties that have not been ratified by the Senate, some of which the US signed, others that we have not, none of which are law binding upon the US, but are in fact international law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_unsigned_or_unratified_by_the_United_States

Here's a list of treaties that are still in front of the Senate awaiting ratification, many of which have been waiting on a vote in the Senate for decades: https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/pending/

What Kavanaugh said, is correct. The US is bound by treaties, but not international law. In accordance with the US Constitution, a treaty that the US is a signatory is de facto US law and recognized in US courts as such, not as international law.

No quarrel. I was referring to ratified treaties when I mentioned international law. Sorry for the mix up. Now, if Kavanaugh would just tell Trump, we might get some where.

 

[Beaudreaux]

No quarrel. I was referring to ratified treaties when I mentioned international law. Sorry for the mix up. Now, if Kavanaugh would just tell Trump, we might get some where.

No quarrel from me either. :thumbs: