January 31, 2005

Reaction to Judge Green's Ruling

Not much comment from any big name webloggers on Judge Green's ruling. That doesn't mean there isn't any interesting commentary. Here's Rand Holman's take:

And the very people she is seeking to protect are not Americans, they were not captured on American soil, and they are suspected terrorists, or have fired upon US Troops in an overseas military operation.

And "their" rights are not what American troops have fought and died for, your Honor.

The State Of... writes, "I think Judge Green's ruling is rightly decided. It makes no sense to say somebody is not protected by International Law." There's one HUGE problem with this thinking: The U.S. is governed by its constitution not international law. Yes, the U.S. must hold to treaties that have passed the Senate, but the integrity of any nation-state requires its own laws to be paramount.

Lyle Denniston offers his analysis that points out the Geneva Convention aspect of the case:

Second, she decided that at least some of the detainees – those captured as fighters with Taliban forces in Afghanistan – have a right under the Geneva Convention to an independent tribunal’s decision as to whether they are entitled to the protections due a prisoner of war. She rejected the Bush Administration argument that President Bush alone has the power to decide when the Geneva Convention applies. She did accept Bush’s conclusion that the Convention does not apply to Al Qaeda members.

UPDATE: Steven Taylor has no problem with Judge Green's ruling. He writes, "I do adhere to the notion that there are fundamental hunan rights, many of which are, in fact, detailed in the US Constitution." As do I. I just don't think it's the duty of a nation state to uphold the rights of non-citizens.