jfnbl at earthlink.com
jfnbl at earthlink.com
Mon Sep 18 18:04:02 PDT 2006
I don't pretend to explain the majority's thinking, but the
distinction between state and non-state actors as a basis for
determining the rights of prisoners isn't much use when the
belligerents are at war over the legitimacy of claims to statehood.
Bin Laden claims to lead Al Qaeda as a successor to the Caliphate --
the pure, unified Islamic state that succeeded Muhammed before it
devolved into separate political emirates and religious factions. It
is our prerogative, along with the Arab establishment, to refuse to
recognize the legitimacy of the caliphate; but most of the Arab
establishment also refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Israel.
Similarly, China refuses to recognize Taiwan, and there are people in
Idaho who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the United States.
During WWII, the Germans treated American prisoners in accordance
with the Geneva Convention, but French partisans, even after they
donned uniforms in the wake of the Normandy invasion in 1944, were
summarily executed because France had surrendered in 1940, and the
Germans viewed the French Forces of the Interior as criminals, not
At 5:09 PM -0400 9/18/06, davidebernstein at aol.com wrote:
>(1) I'm kind of puzzled as to why the majority in Hamdan thinks that
>his rights under the "laws of war" are determined by the rights of
>prisoners of war under the Geneva convention. Wouldn't the better
>analogy be to "piracy" (also non-state actors). Did the government
>simply not make this argument in its brief (the opinion has no
>reference to piracy, far as I can tell.) If piracy is the better
>anaology, or even if not, why are the traditional rights of those
>accused of piracy? Could they be charged by military commission?
>Shot on sight?
>(2) Why is the fact that Hamdan's conspiracy with Bin Laden started
>before 9/11 relevant? Wasn't the U.S. in effect at war with Al Qaeda
>before then (first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, etc.)? Even if not,
>given an ongoing conspiracy, does it matter if the original
>agreement to conspire occurred before the relevant date? Doesn't
>continuing the conspiracy after that date (continuing to be Bin
>Laden's driver) constitute a new agreement to conpsire each time?
>out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
>tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across
>the web, free AOL Mail and more.
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
>as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof