First, can we stop bashing the military by insinuating that the military has been making these arguments. These decisions regarding the prisoners, their status and the legal arguments regarding same are policy decisions made by civilians.

Second, I thought Padilla had charges brought against him in federal court after the last ruling that established that US citizens' habeas corpus rights could not be waived.

Third, never before have non-US citizens who are enemy combatants, soldiers or spies been provided access to federal courts. This sets a new precedent in this area of the law and it clearly stems more from politics than precedence. In fact, the Court is basically rejecting the WWII precedent the administration used to establish Gitmo.

The Geneva Convention allows summary execution for funding Muslim fighters in Bosnia and Chechnya in the 1990s?

The statement about the military was a quote from the BBC story that I linked to.

Padilla was held for about 3 1/2 years because the government claimed that he was planning a "dirty bomb" attack. After they could no longer delay the process, he was transferred to the court system and convicted on charges totally unrelated to what he was being held for. He wasn't even charged with anything like the "dirty bomb" claim.

The Geneva Convention does make special provisions for unlawful enemy combatants, but that designation requires a finding of that status by a competent tribunal. The Bush administration tried to impose that simply by a decree from Bush. What has been rejected are the Bush administration's legal claims - on three occasions now - by a Supreme Court to which Republican presidents have appointed seven of the nine justices.

Does it bother you at all that we have held people for six years without any proof that we had any reason to hold them? Does it matter whether they are guilty of anything?

The Geneva Convention allows for summary executions of unlawful enemy combatants, smart azz.

If you have read any of my arguments on this, you know the answers to your questions. No, I don't agree with the administration that these people could be held indefinitely by executive fiat, but the Court is just as wrong in finding that they are entitled to US Constitutional protections. They are not US citizens, are not on US soil, they are enemy combatants under the Convention and are therefore entitled to a tribunal's determination of their status.

That does not grant them habeas corpus rights, et al.

Does it bother you that these people will be freed to commit acts of terror, kill, mame and otherwise inflict harm on innocent people?

See, I can ask snide, attacking questions too.

The question is how does funding Muslim fighters in Bosnia and Chechnya in the 1990s make them an unlawful enemy combatant????

You seem to just accept the fact that if the Bush administration calls them that it must be true. That is why the Geneva Convention requires a hearing, not just a decree.

Are you being intentionally dense. I said they are entitled to a hearing, does not mean they are entitled to habeas corpus and a hearing in US Federal Courts.

Do you understand the difference?

Also, if the Gitmo prisoners have Habeas rights, why don't the prisoners held in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I have to laugh when you ask if I'm being dense when you don't even recognize that I was responding to someone else's post!

Alright, you got me on that one

Sorry.

You understand what a summary execution is don't you. There is a "hearing" by the ranking officer on the scene, and then they get a .45 to the head. Also if they are not uniformed military personnel, they are unlawful combatants according to the convention.