Question on US Military Tribunals law?

Question

On Tuesday, President Bush signed a law passed by Congress regarding interrogation and trials for accused terrorists and enemy combatants. This was in response to Supreme Court rulings in 2004 and 2006 regarding the treatment of such persons.

My question is, what was the state of the law before that? We fought many wars before this one. Was Bush trying to do something not done before, did the courts expand protections for enemy combatants, or were we violating the law during those prior conflicts, up until recently? It seems as though there could be no explanation, other than one (or more) of those three.

So, what is it? Please provide sources if you can.

I really would appreciate serious answers. Maybe we will all learn something. Thanks!

Answer 1

In the the past wars such as WWII, spy's and enemy soldiers caught out of uniform behind or in our lines, were either shot on sight or hung and left to public display. No trial, No Military tribunal, usually no questions asked. The Geneva accord provides NO protection for those caught under those circumstances. Period! See WWII at the battle of the Bulge. Operation Greif run by the the famous German Skorzeny; The German special forces that were sent behind our lines in American uniforms to disrupt communication and logistics(resupply and transport) They were specially trained in English. When they were caught they were executed by firing squad right then an there. Some were shot on the spot by GI's that figured out they were not Americans. Those GI's got commended for it . not investigated into the shooting as they would now.

Answer 2

Seems the Liberals on the Supreme Court, sided with the ACLU,
To extend Constitutional rights to the enemy, Makes you wonder
what the enemy, would do without the ACLU, too bad, they only
help the enemy.

Answer 3

While in the past , we upheld the Geneva Convention , it wasn't defined in our law .
Now it's defined .
If you read article #5 of the G.C. you'll see that it requires tribunals to determine the status of prisoners .
Some liberal politicians want to give terrorists jury trials , with taxpayer funded defence lawyers .
Where do you find , jury of peers , when speaking of terrorists ?
Are you going to put terrorists in the jury box ?
Under the laws (ISLAMIC ) of the terrorists homelands , they would have been beheaded by now .

Answer 4

Don't get your panties in a knit, yet. The brilliant part of American government means there will be challenges in court to this. Just because it is signed, doesn't make it so. Some people think they are immune to international law, as well. Those people will be sorely disappointed in the end.

Answer 5

no! times have changed, politics now has a more intrusive role in our military, all conflicts of this century have great political impacts, wars are a great political agenda now. even 3rd world countries now are permitted to have nukes. to achieve world political recognition.