Mark Levin on :The Outrage of Hamdan, an “intellectually dishonest opinion”:
“The purpose of this language is to make clear that NOT every combatant is covered by this treaty, i.e., that in order to receive the Convention's protections, combatants must accept and comply with basic rules of war. Any literate person should understand this.
Well, the activist Supreme Court majority in Hamdan decided to ignore this language. Instead, it looked to "Common Article 3," which has nothing to do with the current war. It requires, as an initial matter, that the conflict be not be of an international character. But the war on terrorism clearly is of an international character. Are the justices blind to the numerous known terrorist cells and conflicts throughout the world?”
“After rejecting the jurisdictional restriction of this article, the Court then went ahead and applied it to unlawful enemy combatants. That is to say, that terrorists detained by the U.S. "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely" and there shall be no "outrages upon [their] personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."
Full text here.
The Geneva Convention has zilch to do with unlawful enemy combatants. Moreover, the Reagan administration rejected an attempt to include terrorists under the protections of the Geneva Convention. There is no doubt in my mind but that the original signatories of this international binding document would be appalled by the weird interpretation by these five U.S. Supreme Court Justices. No, this is a quintessential example of post modernist insanity.
To Beau or not to Beau?
31 minutes ago