Lawyer's response to military tribunals

Which section of the Constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to enemy combatants?

Just wondering, if Al Queda is holding an American prisoner, do they get a bible to read? Or three square meals a day?(with requests) Do they get pray time? I think not. They get video taped being beaten,tortured, beheaded, burned, then hung from bridges for all to see. There is a reason why they are at Gitmo. They are terrorists, not soldiers of a foreign country that abide by the Geveva Convention. They are not going away any time soon.

I can only hope, that Glenn's answer is a joke.
There's is no evidence that the prisoners are terrorist. Since 9/11 the USA seems to have forgotten the existence of human rights. Unbelievable!

This just demonstrates how little people understand about Guantanamo - including lawyers and reporters.

The movie isn't about Military Tribunals at all. It's about status review panels, which are completely separate and distinct. It's like making a movie about a parole hearing and calling it a courtroom drama.

Status review panels (which review detainees status to determine if they're properly categorized as combatants) are held as soon as practical after someone is captured. Then, if they're determined to be combatants (whether lawful or unlawful), they're held. In the case of the detainees at Guantanamo, they these review are done periodically thereafter... something not required under the Geneva Convention.

Libowitz claims he's not making an "issue film." By misrepresenting the topic of his movie, he's either demonstrating a complete ignorance of his topic, or a willful disregard for the truth.

This is a movie about a parole hearing. Nothing more, nothing less... and nothing to do with military tribunals.

Character does matter!
And character and or a lack of character says it all!

Tommy wrote:

Which section of the Constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to enemy combatants?

read the constitution again. it does not guarantee anything to citizens. rather it provides for the "people" to have certain rights. these rights are recognized as inalienable to "people" not citizens of a country. that is why protections are expanded to others as we are all people. Additionally, look at the Supremacy Clause (Section VI). When the US signed the Geneva Conventions, it essentially enshrined those Conventions into our Consitution. Therefore, we provide all the protections in the Conventions as if they were part of the Constitution.

Actually, the constutution states "We the people of the United States of America" so that puts that one to bed. I'm amazed at the Geneva convention folks always seem to forget that it's pretty clear about "uniformed" military folks are the ones whom are being afforded protections. These animals, whom you so feel sorry for, are guys that put on their Levi jeans and jacket, picked up an Iranian AK-47, and started shooting at Iraqi, Afghan, & US forces. These aren't folks the gov't picked up at the local 7-11 buying bread and milk they are folks who have taken a lifes mission to KILL YOU! Yes YOU, your KIDS,Your PARENTS, and everyone else who is AMERICAN. Why do you think that you can talk to someone willing to strap a bomb onto themselves or their loved ones and blow up innocent women and children at a market picking up dinner? You seriously think you can reason with these people? You're right on one thing, they should put them in general lockup in the local New York prison to stand trial in federal court and see how they fair when they cease to get special protections, the prison population would mitigate the need for further discussion which would be fine with me.

Actually, the constutution states "We the people of the United States of America" so that puts that one to bed.

actually that refers to the people of the US- not the citizens. you have to take this statement in the historical context- whom did the founders consider citizens? that answer would not include women or blacks- only landed white males- they did not state "citizens" in order to expand those god given rights to all people and not just citizens. or do you suggest that that reference should refer only to those citizens at the time of the founding as a strict constructionist would suggest?

Actually wrote:

Actually, the constutution states "We the people of the United States of America" so that puts that one to bed. I'm amazed at the Geneva convention folks always seem to forget that it's pretty clear about "uniformed" military folks are the ones whom are being afforded protections. These animals, whom you so feel sorry for, are guys that put on their Levi jeans and jacket, picked up an Iranian AK-47, and started shooting at Iraqi, Afghan, & US forces. These aren't folks the gov't picked up at the local 7-11 buying bread and milk they are folks who have taken a lifes mission to KILL YOU! Yes YOU, your KIDS,Your PARENTS, and everyone else who is AMERICAN. Why do you think that you can talk to someone willing to strap a bomb onto themselves or their loved ones and blow up innocent women and children at a market picking up dinner? You seriously think you can reason with these people? You're right on one thing, they should put them in general lockup in the local New York prison to stand trial in federal court and see how they fair when they cease to get special protections, the prison population would mitigate the need for further discussion which would be fine with me.

i love it when people further dehumanize others so that they can rationalize their insane actions. yes by simplifying things to this level, you can justify almost anything! hey they are just animals so we can torture them however we like. it doesnt matter! zap their balls again...truly compassionate.

What is the purpose of the Geneva Conventions? Essentially to ensure that when your (Our) troops are captured that they are treated in a humane fashion. So do you not see how we lose in the end when we refuse to treat our enemies as we would like our soldiers to be treated? We lose all our moral standing in the eyes of Islamic Nations- particularly as we are spreading "freedom" - when we engage in the type of treatment shown to the world at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc.

Why do i think that we can rationalize with these "animals" as you so kindly put it? Because i know that they are humans just like you and me. They engage in the same trials of life and seek greater meaning, they care for their kids just like you and i, they seek to make their lives better. So in that vein , i know that by offering them the opportunity to engage in peaceful change, that they would respond in kind. But, you know, i would like to think that about my fellow ameicans, but your language suggests that i should rethink that. do you even realize that you sound just like "animal" leaders that you preach hatred towards? listen to some of the rhetoric of OBL and see if it doesnt sound just like your words. just because we use different weapons, does that make our actions any more just?

"These aren't folks the gov't picked up at the local 7-11 buying bread and milk "
-well actually some of them are. Like Murat Kurnaz...
"His road to Guantánamo started with a trip to Pakistan in October 2001, only a few weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the start of the war on terrorism.
According to his German lawyer Bernhard Docke, Kurnaz was on a pilgrimage in Pakistan where he visited several mosques and Muslim schools. After a little over a month, the then 19-year-old was picked off a bus by Pakistani police, who turned him over to the U.S. military."
http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence...
so i guess picking them up on their way to church is ok as long as it is a mosque

Voltaire wrote:

Steve said, "Because i know that they are humans just like you and me. They engage in the same trials of life and seek greater meaning, they care for their kids just like you and i, they seek to make their lives better."
And they strap bombs on to their bodies which they explode among women and children in stores, marketplaces... They cut the throats of prisoners and hostages. They take their instructions from their holy book, the koran to conquer all infidel lands and subjugate all infidel people.
just like you and i

you miss a key point- the previous poster conflated all muslims into one category- animals. there is a distinction between muslims and terrorists- to suggest that all muslims are terrorists and harbor the same fanatical desires and motives is innacurate and wrong. by placing all those muslims into one group and suggesting that they are less than human and incapable of reason, or humanity even, is unacceptable. and it seems that you would do the same when you suggest that "They take their instructions from their holy book, the koran to conquer all infidel lands and subjugate all infidel people." How often do we hear about how certain passages in the bible are no longer interpreted in a certain way- for example the portions of leviticus in which stoning is the appropriate response for adultery or what have you- why is that explained away and yet you could not consider like passages from the koran to be similar? so should i just lump all "christians" together like timothy mcveigh and call them all domestic terrorists? are you a christian terrorist? spreading your message of hate to all that you can reach?
Do you see what i am trying to say? do you understand how lumping groups of people together into one poorly constructed stereotype does absolutely no good other than to dehumanize the "other". its amazing how many people by this crap.

Voltaire wrote:

Steve please learn logical argument. A passage from the Bible telling to stone an adulterer is very, very, different from the koran instructing ALL muslims to go forth and conquer infidel lands and to kill, convert, or enslave all infidels. The teachings of the Bible and of Christian texts have been moderated by religious leaders over the centuries to eliminate the violent and unchristian actions and teachings. The koran has NEVER been modified or changed from its original VIOLENT teachings. Please read up on it before you present more illogical comparisons.

riiightt- so if its the bible or christianity its ok but if its muslims then its eeeevvvviiiiilll.
gotcha. simply foolish.