A Supreme Court Hamdan Guide

[Hurin_Rules]

Ah, more of Pindar's evasive, 'depends on what the meaning of is is' routine, with the added benefit that this time he is in his element (the question being one of international law), so he can dodge and weave for hours on end. More fun for us all.

Anyway, the central point which you continually fail to address is that the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Conventions. If you wish to deny this, then you'd have to deny that a massive host of nations--including Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Hungary, Russia, etc. etc.--are signatories to the Conventions, since their governments have changed since their nations signed as well (as Aenlic pointed out in another thread). This would mean that very few countries at all are bound by the Geneva Conventions. And that is pretty ridiculous.

Moreover, even if we accepted your argument on this point, when the Taliban, with their organized command structure, rose up against a foreign invasion (by the US and its allies), those fighting were entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Those imprisoned, wounded or otherwise hors de combat are always entitled to the same protections. Pretty much everyone has now admitted this--even the Bush administration--but if you want someone to keep explaining to you what you already know in excruciating detail, I, for one, am done playing along.

I respect that you disagree with the SCOTUS decision, Pindar, and you make some very good points. I disagree with some of SCOTUS's rulings as well (eminent domain, anyone?). I just wish that you, as an expert in this field, would give the other side full due rather than being evasive and obfuscatory, explain the story with a bit more objectivity and not try to browbeat or belittle your opponents--especially when their position keeps winning in the courts.

Enjoy the argument, all, I am out to enjoy the summer.