A Supreme Court Hamdan Guide

[Pindar]

My sense of self-worth is now destroyed. I hope you can live with yourself.

I'm sorry. I think you have worth even as a ghost.

Besides, I love Macbeth.

[Pindar]

Ah, more of Pindar's evasive, 'depends on what the meaning of is is' routine...

My position is quite clear. The ruling is a bad decision and I explained why.

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.

Continually failed to address? Afghanistan is a signatory of the GC. The Taliban are not. I pointed this out. The Taliban regime was not recognized by the U.S. I pointed this out. More to the point, this does not address POW status which is not dependant on simple GC signatory status. There are set criteria all of which must be met. I pointed out one as a simple example: uniforms. Despite your insistence these did in fact exist, you couldn't present an example. The Taliban fail to meet this criteria. They thus fail to meet the criteria for POW status.

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.

This notion has been addressed. It is flawed. The Taliban predate the U.S. war in Afghanistan. They were controlling most of the country by 1996. Your history is incorrect. This impacts the legal claim.

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.

This thread was not intended as simply a statement of what occurred. It is not a response to someone asking for a simple brief or rundown of the jurisprudence. It is partisan. I am partisan. To quote Disraeli: "I am a man of the Party" The thread at the top of the first post notes: "This was a bad decision". This is a judgment. It then proceeds to explain the wherefore of that judgment. To complain about a partisan piece for being partisan is to fail to understand the basic point.

[Pindar]

There still seems to be a misunderstanding concerning the word "balance". When standing on one foot you need balance in order not to fall down, but that does not mean stability and balance are always connected. Balance requires equalness because of conceptual aspects. If two entities are unequal in power, there is no balance between them. Even if they form a stable system.
Now this may seem entirely semantical, because balance - such defined - is not necessarily something to be desired (as I said, some systems need imbalance to function). But I think there is reason to believe - without having rigorous proof - that balance between the powers that govern a nation is a desirable thing.

This doesn't answer my question. I take it you hold this statement: "Balance and control between the branches requires that one is not more powerful than others." is then the correct. Why 'requires'?

Possibly, however, one should contemplate the option that the person in question is you. This is assumption of course, but I think that when Pape confronted you with a fictional scenario and asked you whether you find it okay, he was not investigating a jurisdical question. It was an ethical question. Should your answer be devoid of an ethical statement, then it was in fact not an answer. I tried to follow the Principle of Charity by not taking this interpretation.

Actually I thought/think Pape was asking a jurisprudential question given law is the larger focus. Even so, I don't think my response was devoid of ethical content either. The last sentence was: "one should avoid lands whose legality they question." I don't know how that leads to your initial impression as it sounds fairly categorical.

[Papewaio]

I was looking to see if the principle of reciprocity was being applied.

[Pindar]

I was looking to see if the principle of reciprocity was being applied.

There ya go.

[Papewaio]

Both the jurisprudential version and the ethical one.

ie treaties/law/justice and golden rule/karma/equality.

[Spetulhu]

The Taliban regime was not recognized by the U.S. I pointed this out.

The other government doesn't have to be "recognized" for their soldiers to get POW status. Surely you know this?

[Pindar]

JCS = Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was late at night and I was felt like being a lazy typer.

I see.

Basically, the point of my post is that you can't doubt the power of the Supreme Court while at the same time supporting all of that crazyness. If you try to invalidate the SCOTUS, you have to invalidate all that other stuff which is easily less democratic.

Thus, your point has nothing to do with my post(s)/point.

[Pindar]

Both the jurisprudential version and the ethical one.

ie treaties/law/justice and golden rule/karma/equality.

There ya go.

[Pindar]

The other government doesn't have to be "recognized" for their soldiers to get POW status. Surely you know this?

Read the sentence that follows the one you referenced. Then read the next two sentences that follow that one.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm sorry. I think you have worth even as a ghost.

Besides, I love Macbeth.

There ya go. Always on the side of the incumbent right wing power, no matter what his crimes.

[Pindar]

There ya go. Always on the side of the incumbent right wing power, no matter what his crimes.

It wasn't his fault. It was the system.

Speak truth to power!

[Vladimir]

Gotta love it when Pindar steps down from the mountain.

[A.Saturnus]

This doesn't answer my question. I take it you hold this statement: "Balance and control between the branches requires that one is not more powerful than others." is then the correct. Why 'requires'?

Hmm, I thought I explained that. Here:

Balance requires equalness because of conceptual aspects. If two entities are unequal in power, there is no balance between them. Even if they form a stable system.

I say "requires" because according to the definition I'm using balance cannot be there if powers are unequal.

Actually I thought/think Pape was asking a jurisprudential question given law is the larger focus. Even so, I don't think my response was devoid of ethical content either. The last sentence was: "one should avoid lands whose legality they question." I don't know how that leads to your initial impression as it sounds fairly categorical.

Ok, then. But that sounds like blaming the victim. Do you not have any moral critique on those countries in the hypothetical situation?